trav777 wrote:

travelhound wrote:

.......there will always be underlying demand for passengers and freight and as such the aircraft that can move that demand the most efficiently will have an advantage in the market place. A 787-10 with more range is just going to make this aircraft more capable and as a consequence suitable for a broader range of airline customers.

i don't see the obsession with range. The plane will beat anything out there up to 5500, 6000nm, probably to the edge of its range envelope on fuel burn. This is the majority of routes in this class. The 330 was in this niche and sold exceptionally despite more "capable" 777s available at the same time.

There's more demand for what it can do than what it cannot. It's a 789 that swapped fuel for pax. Should inherit all of the other positive characteristics of the 789 in terms of operating efficiency. If it were bigger it would just be "on par" with the 359's economics. As things stand, it's nearly 10% better on burn. This is a differentiation that creates a product selling point.

What it does do is not go head-to-head with the 359, it brackets it. It's cost-wise dominant over the 359 through its operating range. If those are the routes you wanna do 330 pax with, it's the cheapest jet to do it with. If you want to fly further, you can choose the 789 out to about 7100nm with roughly 300pax or you could choose the 359 probably to 7500nm with the same load.

Look at it this way- NZ has the 789 and they're looking at ways to shed weight to get to JFK, not acquire a much bigger jet. The 787 series is in a position where the operating economics are compelling to airlines and all this talk of extra cargo over these long ranges...that's just not really where most of the market is. These are passenger airlines, not cargo carriers; cargo is a side business, gravy. If you're the sole operator on AKL-JFK, you can let DL carry the freight in its 77Ls lol as you command a nonstop premium on that route. To offset the .4t/hr burn differential, that's 800kg of fuel per hour over a ULH mission, you have to have consistent cargo demand and the shore-side capability to handle it (personnel, equipment, etc.).

I look at Boeing's WB strategy and I think they've got the right idea. Instead of wasting money going head to head, they're taking smaller risks to shrink the competitive monopoly the opposition's plane has in terms of payload and range, squeezing it into a niche. The 78J makes the 359 flatly noncompetitive economically on most routes airlines fly. For those the 78J cannot do, Boeing is offering the 777x and we will have to wait to see how it performs (the airlines appear to be doing the same if we look at recent orders).

Very clearly, Boeing made the 787 to carry passengers to distance as a primary focus. The 777x is the heavy hauler if you need it

mjoelnir wrote:

trav777 wrote:

travelhound wrote:

.......there will always be underlying demand for passengers and freight and as such the aircraft that can move that demand the most efficiently will have an advantage in the market place. A 787-10 with more range is just going to make this aircraft more capable and as a consequence suitable for a broader range of airline customers.

i don't see the obsession with range. The plane will beat anything out there up to 5500, 6000nm, probably to the edge of its range envelope on fuel burn. This is the majority of routes in this class. The 330 was in this niche and sold exceptionally despite more "capable" 777s available at the same time.

There's more demand for what it can do than what it cannot. It's a 789 that swapped fuel for pax. Should inherit all of the other positive characteristics of the 789 in terms of operating efficiency. If it were bigger it would just be "on par" with the 359's economics. As things stand, it's nearly 10% better on burn. This is a differentiation that creates a product selling point.

What it does do is not go head-to-head with the 359, it brackets it. It's cost-wise dominant over the 359 through its operating range. If those are the routes you wanna do 330 pax with, it's the cheapest jet to do it with. If you want to fly further, you can choose the 789 out to about 7100nm with roughly 300pax or you could choose the 359 probably to 7500nm with the same load.

Look at it this way- NZ has the 789 and they're looking at ways to shed weight to get to JFK, not acquire a much bigger jet. The 787 series is in a position where the operating economics are compelling to airlines and all this talk of extra cargo over these long ranges...that's just not really where most of the market is. These are passenger airlines, not cargo carriers; cargo is a side business, gravy. If you're the sole operator on AKL-JFK, you can let DL carry the freight in its 77Ls lol as you command a nonstop premium on that route. To offset the .4t/hr burn differential, that's 800kg of fuel per hour over a ULH mission, you have to have consistent cargo demand and the shore-side capability to handle it (personnel, equipment, etc.).

I look at Boeing's WB strategy and I think they've got the right idea. Instead of wasting money going head to head, they're taking smaller risks to shrink the competitive monopoly the opposition's plane has in terms of payload and range, squeezing it into a niche. The 78J makes the 359 flatly noncompetitive economically on most routes airlines fly. For those the 78J cannot do, Boeing is offering the 777x and we will have to wait to see how it performs (the airlines appear to be doing the same if we look at recent orders).

Very clearly, Boeing made the 787 to carry passengers to distance as a primary focus. The 777x is the heavy hauler if you need it

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

trav777 wrote:

i don't see the obsession with range. The plane will beat anything out there up to 5500, 6000nm, probably to the edge of its range envelope on fuel burn. This is the majority of routes in this class. The 330 was in this niche and sold exceptionally despite more "capable" 777s available at the same time.

There's more demand for what it can do than what it cannot. It's a 789 that swapped fuel for pax. Should inherit all of the other positive characteristics of the 789 in terms of operating efficiency. If it were bigger it would just be "on par" with the 359's economics. As things stand, it's nearly 10% better on burn. This is a differentiation that creates a product selling point.

What it does do is not go head-to-head with the 359, it brackets it. It's cost-wise dominant over the 359 through its operating range. If those are the routes you wanna do 330 pax with, it's the cheapest jet to do it with. If you want to fly further, you can choose the 789 out to about 7100nm with roughly 300pax or you could choose the 359 probably to 7500nm with the same load.

Look at it this way- NZ has the 789 and they're looking at ways to shed weight to get to JFK, not acquire a much bigger jet. The 787 series is in a position where the operating economics are compelling to airlines and all this talk of extra cargo over these long ranges...that's just not really where most of the market is. These are passenger airlines, not cargo carriers; cargo is a side business, gravy. If you're the sole operator on AKL-JFK, you can let DL carry the freight in its 77Ls lol as you command a nonstop premium on that route. To offset the .4t/hr burn differential, that's 800kg of fuel per hour over a ULH mission, you have to have consistent cargo demand and the shore-side capability to handle it (personnel, equipment, etc.).


I look at Boeing's WB strategy and I think they've got the right idea. Instead of wasting money going head to head, they're taking smaller risks to shrink the competitive monopoly the opposition's plane has in terms of payload and range, squeezing it into a niche. The 78J makes the 359 flatly noncompetitive economically on most routes airlines fly. For those the 78J cannot do, Boeing is offering the 777x and we will have to wait to see how it performs (the airlines appear to be doing the same if we look at recent orders).

Very clearly, Boeing made the 787 to carry passengers to distance as a primary focus. The 777x is the heavy hauler if you need it

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

I Would be factoring in the 787-10 having more seats. KLM will have 344 seats on the 787-10 with more premium seats than Air France in the A359 who has 324 seats. That is a 6% capacity difference. If OEW is 4-7% lower and capacity is 5-7% higher with the 787-10, I could see a 10% fuel burn per passenger being true.

travelhound wrote:

My post was referring to an upgrade to the 787-10 with new / updated engines sometime in the future. When this does happen the 787-10 will be a more capable aircraft capable of flying more of the A350's core routes.

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

trav777 wrote:

i don't see the obsession with range. The plane will beat anything out there up to 5500, 6000nm, probably to the edge of its range envelope on fuel burn. This is the majority of routes in this class. The 330 was in this niche and sold exceptionally despite more "capable" 777s available at the same time.

There's more demand for what it can do than what it cannot. It's a 789 that swapped fuel for pax. Should inherit all of the other positive characteristics of the 789 in terms of operating efficiency. If it were bigger it would just be "on par" with the 359's economics. As things stand, it's nearly 10% better on burn. This is a differentiation that creates a product selling point.

What it does do is not go head-to-head with the 359, it brackets it. It's cost-wise dominant over the 359 through its operating range. If those are the routes you wanna do 330 pax with, it's the cheapest jet to do it with. If you want to fly further, you can choose the 789 out to about 7100nm with roughly 300pax or you could choose the 359 probably to 7500nm with the same load.

Look at it this way- NZ has the 789 and they're looking at ways to shed weight to get to JFK, not acquire a much bigger jet. The 787 series is in a position where the operating economics are compelling to airlines and all this talk of extra cargo over these long ranges...that's just not really where most of the market is. These are passenger airlines, not cargo carriers; cargo is a side business, gravy. If you're the sole operator on AKL-JFK, you can let DL carry the freight in its 77Ls lol as you command a nonstop premium on that route. To offset the .4t/hr burn differential, that's 800kg of fuel per hour over a ULH mission, you have to have consistent cargo demand and the shore-side capability to handle it (personnel, equipment, etc.).

I look at Boeing's WB strategy and I think they've got the right idea. Instead of wasting money going head to head, they're taking smaller risks to shrink the competitive monopoly the opposition's plane has in terms of payload and range, squeezing it into a niche. The 78J makes the 359 flatly noncompetitive economically on most routes airlines fly. For those the 78J cannot do, Boeing is offering the 777x and we will have to wait to see how it performs (the airlines appear to be doing the same if we look at recent orders).

Very clearly, Boeing made the 787 to carry passengers to distance as a primary focus. The 777x is the heavy hauler if you need it

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

I Would be factoring in the 787-10 having more seats. KLM will have 344 seats on the 787-10 with more premium seats than Air France in the A359 who has 324 seats. That is a 6% capacity difference. If OEW is 4-7% lower and capacity is 5-7% higher with the 787-10, I could see a 10% fuel burn per passenger being true.

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

trav777 wrote:

i don't see the obsession with range. The plane will beat anything out there up to 5500, 6000nm, probably to the edge of its range envelope on fuel burn. This is the majority of routes in this class. The 330 was in this niche and sold exceptionally despite more "capable" 777s available at the same time.

There's more demand for what it can do than what it cannot. It's a 789 that swapped fuel for pax. Should inherit all of the other positive characteristics of the 789 in terms of operating efficiency. If it were bigger it would just be "on par" with the 359's economics. As things stand, it's nearly 10% better on burn. This is a differentiation that creates a product selling point.

What it does do is not go head-to-head with the 359, it brackets it. It's cost-wise dominant over the 359 through its operating range. If those are the routes you wanna do 330 pax with, it's the cheapest jet to do it with. If you want to fly further, you can choose the 789 out to about 7100nm with roughly 300pax or you could choose the 359 probably to 7500nm with the same load.

Look at it this way- NZ has the 789 and they're looking at ways to shed weight to get to JFK, not acquire a much bigger jet. The 787 series is in a position where the operating economics are compelling to airlines and all this talk of extra cargo over these long ranges...that's just not really where most of the market is. These are passenger airlines, not cargo carriers; cargo is a side business, gravy. If you're the sole operator on AKL-JFK, you can let DL carry the freight in its 77Ls lol as you command a nonstop premium on that route. To offset the .4t/hr burn differential, that's 800kg of fuel per hour over a ULH mission, you have to have consistent cargo demand and the shore-side capability to handle it (personnel, equipment, etc.).

I look at Boeing's WB strategy and I think they've got the right idea. Instead of wasting money going head to head, they're taking smaller risks to shrink the competitive monopoly the opposition's plane has in terms of payload and range, squeezing it into a niche. The 78J makes the 359 flatly noncompetitive economically on most routes airlines fly. For those the 78J cannot do, Boeing is offering the 777x and we will have to wait to see how it performs (the airlines appear to be doing the same if we look at recent orders).

Very clearly, Boeing made the 787 to carry passengers to distance as a primary focus. The 777x is the heavy hauler if you need it

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

I Would be factoring in the 787-10 having more seats. KLM will have 344 seats on the 787-10 with more premium seats than Air France in the A359 who has 324 seats. That is a 6% capacity difference. If OEW is 4-7% lower and capacity is 5-7% higher with the 787-10, I could see a 10% fuel burn per passenger being true.

MrHMSH wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

I Would be factoring in the 787-10 having more seats. KLM will have 344 seats on the 787-10 with more premium seats than Air France in the A359 who has 324 seats. That is a 6% capacity difference. If OEW is 4-7% lower and capacity is 5-7% higher with the 787-10, I could see a 10% fuel burn per passenger being true.

10% difference is in the same territory as the A346/77W disparity. It seems too large to me, we don't have exact numbers but I'm sure I've seen one of the CEOs of a big lessor say that the difference was not that much, which I take to mean 5% or less.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

I Would be factoring in the 787-10 having more seats. KLM will have 344 seats on the 787-10 with more premium seats than Air France in the A359 who has 324 seats. That is a 6% capacity difference. If OEW is 4-7% lower and capacity is 5-7% higher with the 787-10, I could see a 10% fuel burn per passenger being true.

The 787-10 and A350-900 have very similar numbers regarding seats. Two class 330 (32 J and 298 Y) for the 787 and 325 (48 J and 267 Y) for the A350-900, in this example you would I assume see a higher RASM for the A350-900. The 787 is 2 m longer, the A350-900 is wider. It would depend on the seat plan, what frame comes out above in seat numbers. Both frames have a 440 seat max pax.

You can not compare two set ups from different airlines most likely for different use. You will use a different seat plan for medium to long haul, compared to long haul to ultra long haul. French Bee does two class 411 on the A350-900 (35 W + 376 Y).

10 % full burn advantage brings you to a fantasy world of imagination, nothing else. Singapore is now taking its first A350-900 regional, clearly for a similar use as A787-10 would be used.

mjoelnir wrote:

trav777 wrote:

travelhound wrote:

.......there will always be underlying demand for passengers and freight and as such the aircraft that can move that demand the most efficiently will have an advantage in the market place. A 787-10 with more range is just going to make this aircraft more capable and as a consequence suitable for a broader range of airline customers.

i don't see the obsession with range. The plane will beat anything out there up to 5500, 6000nm, probably to the edge of its range envelope on fuel burn. This is the majority of routes in this class. The 330 was in this niche and sold exceptionally despite more "capable" 777s available at the same time.

There's more demand for what it can do than what it cannot. It's a 789 that swapped fuel for pax. Should inherit all of the other positive characteristics of the 789 in terms of operating efficiency. If it were bigger it would just be "on par" with the 359's economics. As things stand, it's nearly 10% better on burn. This is a differentiation that creates a product selling point.

What it does do is not go head-to-head with the 359, it brackets it. It's cost-wise dominant over the 359 through its operating range. If those are the routes you wanna do 330 pax with, it's the cheapest jet to do it with. If you want to fly further, you can choose the 789 out to about 7100nm with roughly 300pax or you could choose the 359 probably to 7500nm with the same load.

Look at it this way- NZ has the 789 and they're looking at ways to shed weight to get to JFK, not acquire a much bigger jet. The 787 series is in a position where the operating economics are compelling to airlines and all this talk of extra cargo over these long ranges...that's just not really where most of the market is. These are passenger airlines, not cargo carriers; cargo is a side business, gravy. If you're the sole operator on AKL-JFK, you can let DL carry the freight in its 77Ls lol as you command a nonstop premium on that route. To offset the .4t/hr burn differential, that's 800kg of fuel per hour over a ULH mission, you have to have consistent cargo demand and the shore-side capability to handle it (personnel, equipment, etc.).

I look at Boeing's WB strategy and I think they've got the right idea. Instead of wasting money going head to head, they're taking smaller risks to shrink the competitive monopoly the opposition's plane has in terms of payload and range, squeezing it into a niche. The 78J makes the 359 flatly noncompetitive economically on most routes airlines fly. For those the 78J cannot do, Boeing is offering the 777x and we will have to wait to see how it performs (the airlines appear to be doing the same if we look at recent orders).

Very clearly, Boeing made the 787 to carry passengers to distance as a primary focus. The 777x is the heavy hauler if you need it

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

trav777 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

trav777 wrote:

i don't see the obsession with range. The plane will beat anything out there up to 5500, 6000nm, probably to the edge of its range envelope on fuel burn. This is the majority of routes in this class. The 330 was in this niche and sold exceptionally despite more "capable" 777s available at the same time.

There's more demand for what it can do than what it cannot. It's a 789 that swapped fuel for pax. Should inherit all of the other positive characteristics of the 789 in terms of operating efficiency. If it were bigger it would just be "on par" with the 359's economics. As things stand, it's nearly 10% better on burn. This is a differentiation that creates a product selling point.

What it does do is not go head-to-head with the 359, it brackets it. It's cost-wise dominant over the 359 through its operating range. If those are the routes you wanna do 330 pax with, it's the cheapest jet to do it with. If you want to fly further, you can choose the 789 out to about 7100nm with roughly 300pax or you could choose the 359 probably to 7500nm with the same load.

Look at it this way- NZ has the 789 and they're looking at ways to shed weight to get to JFK, not acquire a much bigger jet. The 787 series is in a position where the operating economics are compelling to airlines and all this talk of extra cargo over these long ranges...that's just not really where most of the market is. These are passenger airlines, not cargo carriers; cargo is a side business, gravy. If you're the sole operator on AKL-JFK, you can let DL carry the freight in its 77Ls lol as you command a nonstop premium on that route. To offset the .4t/hr burn differential, that's 800kg of fuel per hour over a ULH mission, you have to have consistent cargo demand and the shore-side capability to handle it (personnel, equipment, etc.).

I look at Boeing's WB strategy and I think they've got the right idea. Instead of wasting money going head to head, they're taking smaller risks to shrink the competitive monopoly the opposition's plane has in terms of payload and range, squeezing it into a niche. The 78J makes the 359 flatly noncompetitive economically on most routes airlines fly. For those the 78J cannot do, Boeing is offering the 777x and we will have to wait to see how it performs (the airlines appear to be doing the same if we look at recent orders).

Very clearly, Boeing made the 787 to carry passengers to distance as a primary focus. The 777x is the heavy hauler if you need it

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

Boeing said around 8% on seat mile, 4% lower trip fuel. Other analysis is around 7%/4.5%. Udvar-Hazy concurs. 10% is slightly too high, sorry. Boeing had originally claimed that number, against what configuration of each jet I'm not sure.

you could really just search up 787-10 vs 359 and like let the search engines do the work

lightsaber wrote:

trav777 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

Boeing said around 8% on seat mile, 4% lower trip fuel. Other analysis is around 7%/4.5%. Udvar-Hazy concurs. 10% is slightly too high, sorry. Boeing had originally claimed that number, against what configuration of each jet I'm not sure.

you could really just search up 787-10 vs 359 and like let the search engines do the work

Seeking Alpha estimates per seat mile $0.042 in fuel for the A359 and $0.039

https://seekingalpha.com/article/276908 ... 0minus-900

Basically, within 4,000nm (still air), the 787-10 is far more economical. From 4,000nm to 5,000 nm, cargo will determine the choice. (More cargo=A359 for revenue, less cargo=787-10 to reduce costs). For long range missions, the A359 will dominate. It was 2.6 tons more engine to help lift the extra fuel. Until you get past 4,500nm, the extra engine weight is a cost. Afterwards, an efficiency advantage. Same with the wing unless the better shortfield of the A359 is required (ET). I see many mixed fleets.

The 787-10 needs weight loss (more fuel) and CMC turbine components (hand me down from GE9x).

Lightsaber

trav777 wrote:

This is incredibly troubling for that manufacturer. Their brandest newest effectively flagship jet (the 380 is dead) has been outsold handily by their own warmed over stopgap 330NEO. I know people here are massive fans of this plane but the market hasn't been since it went into service.

So why would Boeing copy something they're beating 4.5:1 over the past half-decade? The question here should be the converse, the A350 needs to change to compete with the 787 not the other way around.

caverunner17 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

This is incredibly troubling for that manufacturer. Their brandest newest effectively flagship jet (the 380 is dead) has been outsold handily by their own warmed over stopgap 330NEO. I know people here are massive fans of this plane but the market hasn't been since it went into service.

So why would Boeing copy something they're beating 4.5:1 over the past half-decade? The question here should be the converse, the A350 needs to change to compete with the 787 not the other way around.

That's a pretty meaningless stat.

There's a backlog of 659 A350's and 781 787's. At the current rate of production, Airbus has about a 6-7 year backlog and Boeing has a 5-6 year backlog.

Neither one is in any immediate danger.

caverunner17 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

This is incredibly troubling for that manufacturer. Their brandest newest effectively flagship jet (the 380 is dead) has been outsold handily by their own warmed over stopgap 330NEO. I know people here are massive fans of this plane but the market hasn't been since it went into service.

So why would Boeing copy something they're beating 4.5:1 over the past half-decade? The question here should be the converse, the A350 needs to change to compete with the 787 not the other way around.

That's a pretty meaningless stat.

There's a backlog of 659 A350's and 781 787's. At the current rate of production, Airbus has about a 6-7 year backlog and Boeing has a 5-6 year backlog.

Neither one is in any immediate danger.

lightsaber wrote:

The 787-10 needs weight loss (more fuel) and CMC turbine components (hand me down from GE9x).

Lightsaber

Lightsaber

trav777 wrote:

caverunner17 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

This is incredibly troubling for that manufacturer. Their brandest newest effectively flagship jet (the 380 is dead) has been outsold handily by their own warmed over stopgap 330NEO. I know people here are massive fans of this plane but the market hasn't been since it went into service.

So why would Boeing copy something they're beating 4.5:1 over the past half-decade? The question here should be the converse, the A350 needs to change to compete with the 787 not the other way around.

That's a pretty meaningless stat.

There's a backlog of 659 A350's and 781 787's. At the current rate of production, Airbus has about a 6-7 year backlog and Boeing has a 5-6 year backlog.

Neither one is in any immediate danger.

yeah you're right, 5 years' worth of sales data since the 359 started deliveries is "meaningless"

I wonder what would be considered meaningful...seeing as the backlog is totally irrelevant to forward sales.

caverunner17 wrote:

trav777 wrote:

caverunner17 wrote:

That's a pretty meaningless stat.

There's a backlog of 659 A350's and 781 787's. At the current rate of production, Airbus has about a 6-7 year backlog and Boeing has a 5-6 year backlog.

Neither one is in any immediate danger.

yeah you're right, 5 years' worth of sales data since the 359 started deliveries is "meaningless"

I wonder what would be considered meaningful...seeing as the backlog is totally irrelevant to forward sales.

It's not irrelevant at all. Slot availability is one. If you can't receive orders for 3-5 years anyways, airlines might be holding off, especially with the potential of a large economy downturn in the next few years.

There's also the concept of a total market, and with over 2200 planes ordered (between the A350 and 787), we might be reaching the point where there aren't many orders left to sell, until some of the newer fleets need replacement. Some of it could be cost and size too. Looks like there were around 30 orders for the 788 last year, something Airbus can't compete with.

AirCanada777X wrote:

There is just one thing I am wondering, someone else mentioned it before as well. The 350 is a 777 competitor. The 330 is a 787 competitor. Why would Boeing make a new type of 787, a 330 competitor, to compete with the 350, a 777 competitor?

MrHMSH wrote:

10% difference is in the same territory as the A346/77W disparity.

mjoelnir wrote:

It is more than the A340-600/777-300ER disparity, that was 8 %.

Stitch wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

10% difference is in the same territory as the A346/77W disparity.

mjoelnir wrote:

It is more than the A340-600/777-300ER disparity, that was 8 %.

Airbus have acknowledged the difference was around 12%. *shrug*

As for 787 / A350 fuel burn, chaostheory has posted that on a 3000nm stage length, the difference between a 787-9 and A350-900 is about 5% (around 300kg an hour) with the 787-10 being effectively the same. And the A350 has been PiP'd since then, so that difference will be even less now.

So a 10% reduction is, as some have noted, ridiculous.

Stitch wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

10% difference is in the same territory as the A346/77W disparity.

mjoelnir wrote:

It is more than the A340-600/777-300ER disparity, that was 8 %.

Airbus have acknowledged the difference was around 12%. *shrug*

As for 787 / A350 fuel burn, chaostheory has posted that on a 3000nm stage length, the difference between a 787-9 and A350-900 is about 5% (around 300kg an hour) with the 787-10 being effectively the same. And the A350 has been PiP'd since then, so that difference will be even less now.

So a 10% reduction is, as some have noted, ridiculous.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

A 10 % fuel burn advantage against a A350 is dreaming. Can you somewhere get a confirmation of those numbers?

The 787-10 has slightly more space than the A350-900, has perhaps a 5 to 10 t difference in OEW (4 to 7%) and there is no way, that there is a 10 % fuel burn advantage at a similar load. At 254 t MTOW for the 787-10 and 264 MTOW for the A350-900 (equal to 10 t difference in OEW) the weight difference between both frames would be about 4 %.
At 254 t MTOW for the 787 and an OEW difference of 5 t, the weight difference would be inside of 2 % for the same load.

The A350-900 has a bigger wingspan and slightly newer engines. It would be interesting how somebody gets the crazy idea about a 10% fuel burn delta.

I Would be factoring in the 787-10 having more seats. KLM will have 344 seats on the 787-10 with more premium seats than Air France in the A359 who has 324 seats. That is a 6% capacity difference. If OEW is 4-7% lower and capacity is 5-7% higher with the 787-10, I could see a 10% fuel burn per passenger being true.

The 787-10 and A350-900 have very similar numbers regarding seats. Two class 330 (32 J and 298 Y) for the 787 and 325 (48 J and 267 Y) for the A350-900, in this example you would I assume see a higher RASM for the A350-900. The 787 is 2 m longer, the A350-900 is wider. It would depend on the seat plan, what frame comes out above in seat numbers. Both frames have a 440 seat max pax.

You can not compare two set ups from different airlines most likely for different use. You will use a different seat plan for medium to long haul, compared to long haul to ultra long haul. French Bee does two class 411 on the A350-900 (35 W + 376 Y).

10 % full burn advantage brings you to a fantasy world of imagination, nothing else. Singapore is now taking its first A350-900 regional, clearly for a similar use as A787-10 would be used.

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I Would be factoring in the 787-10 having more seats. KLM will have 344 seats on the 787-10 with more premium seats than Air France in the A359 who has 324 seats. That is a 6% capacity difference. If OEW is 4-7% lower and capacity is 5-7% higher with the 787-10, I could see a 10% fuel burn per passenger being true.

The 787-10 and A350-900 have very similar numbers regarding seats. Two class 330 (32 J and 298 Y) for the 787 and 325 (48 J and 267 Y) for the A350-900, in this example you would I assume see a higher RASM for the A350-900. The 787 is 2 m longer, the A350-900 is wider. It would depend on the seat plan, what frame comes out above in seat numbers. Both frames have a 440 seat max pax.

You can not compare two set ups from different airlines most likely for different use. You will use a different seat plan for medium to long haul, compared to long haul to ultra long haul. French Bee does two class 411 on the A350-900 (35 W + 376 Y).

10 % full burn advantage brings you to a fantasy world of imagination, nothing else. Singapore is now taking its first A350-900 regional, clearly for a similar use as A787-10 would be used.

No the 787-10 and A350-900 do not have very similar seatcounts. Airbus uses old fashion recliner seats with 60 inch pitch in their marketing seatcount. Boeing updated seat maps and now use lie flat seats for business class. If you want to be accurate, you can’t compare Airbus and Boeing seatcount marketing numbers like you did. I used Air France and KLM for comparison since they have similar seats. Another user compared Singapore. In the real world the 787-10 has more seats than an A350 which is how we get different fuel burn per seat figures. I don’t know if it is 6, 8, 10 or 12% different per seat, but seat counts vary so you can’t assume the two planes have the same number of seats.

MrHMSH wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The 787-10 and A350-900 have very similar numbers regarding seats. Two class 330 (32 J and 298 Y) for the 787 and 325 (48 J and 267 Y) for the A350-900, in this example you would I assume see a higher RASM for the A350-900. The 787 is 2 m longer, the A350-900 is wider. It would depend on the seat plan, what frame comes out above in seat numbers. Both frames have a 440 seat max pax.

You can not compare two set ups from different airlines most likely for different use. You will use a different seat plan for medium to long haul, compared to long haul to ultra long haul. French Bee does two class 411 on the A350-900 (35 W + 376 Y).

10 % full burn advantage brings you to a fantasy world of imagination, nothing else. Singapore is now taking its first A350-900 regional, clearly for a similar use as A787-10 would be used.

No the 787-10 and A350-900 do not have very similar seatcounts. Airbus uses old fashion recliner seats with 60 inch pitch in their marketing seatcount. Boeing updated seat maps and now use lie flat seats for business class. If you want to be accurate, you can’t compare Airbus and Boeing seatcount marketing numbers like you did. I used Air France and KLM for comparison since they have similar seats. Another user compared Singapore. In the real world the 787-10 has more seats than an A350 which is how we get different fuel burn per seat figures. I don’t know if it is 6, 8, 10 or 12% different per seat, but seat counts vary so you can’t assume the two planes have the same number of seats.

Why would anyone buy the A359 if the difference was that much? When the difference is that much one product is effectively driven out of the market, but this isn't the case at all with the A359, and 78X orders haven't really taken off yet, at the moment I would say it was 'respectable' but not much more.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... us-on-fuel

It was Udvar-Hazy who I was thinking of earlier.

Ruscoe wrote:

IMO the reason we have not yet seen an ER 787-10 is because Boeing currently does not have to.
They are producing as many 787 at a new higher rate as they can. Ifsales and sales prospects indicate a substantial rate reduction you may see it.
Any tech advancement will almost certainly be available to both 350 and 787, so the answer lies in the conceptual basis of both aircraft, and here the 787 wins, coming from below, whilst the 350 misses out because it cannot realistically go to 10 abreast for the major market, the XWB makes it heavier than it needs to be, and powerful engines are required to achieve payload range,
Ruscoe

trav777 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

trav777 wrote:

Boeing said around 8% on seat mile, 4% lower trip fuel. Other analysis is around 7%/4.5%. Udvar-Hazy concurs. 10% is slightly too high, sorry. Boeing had originally claimed that number, against what configuration of each jet I'm not sure.

you could really just search up 787-10 vs 359 and like let the search engines do the work

Seeking Alpha estimates per seat mile $0.042 in fuel for the A359 and $0.039

https://seekingalpha.com/article/276908 ... 0minus-900

Basically, within 4,000nm (still air), the 787-10 is far more economical. From 4,000nm to 5,000 nm, cargo will determine the choice. (More cargo=A359 for revenue, less cargo=787-10 to reduce costs). For long range missions, the A359 will dominate. It was 2.6 tons more engine to help lift the extra fuel. Until you get past 4,500nm, the extra engine weight is a cost. Afterwards, an efficiency advantage. Same with the wing unless the better shortfield of the A359 is required (ET). I see many mixed fleets.

The 787-10 needs weight loss (more fuel) and CMC turbine components (hand me down from GE9x).

Lightsaber

The SA article shows the 78J with a 8%-7% seatmile fuel burn advantage across its entire range envelope, from 2000nm (8) to 6000nm (7).
The advantage to the 78J won't decrease with cargo- weight is weight and the competing jet will be carrying the same additional load. the 78J won't be able to fly the fuel load necessary to reach those ranges when swapped for cargo (the 78J is already effectively a 789 that swapped fuel for pax). But for a payload-on-payload comparison, it has a significant advantage across the entire mission profile.

For long range missions, between these two, the 359 is the only one of them that can actually perform them. But at the same time, the 789 can be configured to carry nearly the same pax as the 359 at substantially better economics almost as far as the longest-range 359 variant can fly. At 250 for 789 and 315ish for 359, i expect almost equivalent range as the brochure ranges for 350 are overstated still. After that 7600nm cliff, it's either you lighten your config as QF did and NZ appears to be intending to do or else you procure the 778. SQ is flying 70pax light of brochure on LAX-SIN in their 359. that's basically the same as UA carries on their same city pair but UA has a nearly 8% fuel burn advantage...pax-on-pax this is the difference between the two families. I know you're not doing it at all but some would be better to just accept these facts.

As for more range, the 78J needs better engines and to get lighter for that but I don't think BA's strategy is to try to go head-to-head with the 359, involving the serious redesigns necessary. There's no competitive advantage in doing so. Let the 359 have its little, shrinking niche. If the sales since deliveries began of the 359 are any measure of success, they're on the right track with their strategy.

I cannot emphasize this enough- since the 359 *actually* got delivered to commercial service, it has 82 net orders. In five years. This is incredibly troubling for that manufacturer. Their brandest newest effectively flagship jet (the 380 is dead) has been outsold handily by their own warmed over stopgap 330NEO. I know people here are massive fans of this plane but the market hasn't been since it went into service.

So why would Boeing copy something they're beating 4.5:1 over the past half-decade? The question here should be the converse, the A350 needs to change to compete with the 787 not the other way around.

travelhound wrote:

If I remember correctly Boeing originally proposed the 787-9 and 10 to have a larger wing. I am not too sure if that wing would still be feasible and how much of a gain the 787-10 from using it.

morrisond wrote:

The hard thing to know is what is the limiting factor on taking it above 254T. I remember someone mentioning that the wing is good for 280T but the limiting factor was the gear.

Airbus seems to be able to magically increase MTOW all the time without significantly changing structures. How much is left in the Base 787-10 without major changes?

If (and that's a big if) it's just he gear - is there any extra room in the gear bays for a bigger gear?

Alternatively - are there aero cleanups to be done still? Different Wingtips? Different Body fairings? Lighter interior?

Would they be better off to focus on lowering weight and cleaning up Aero and adopting CMC's in the engines ( basically PIP's) to get more out of it?

3D printing could take a lot out of the interior. Didn't they go away from some lighter titanium structures that were already in use for cost reasons?

So adding it up - Maybe 2-3% from Aero (Assuming new wingtips) - 2-3% from the Engines (CMC's) and do what they can to take weight out of it (3-5,000lb?) - does that get them where the plane is more attractive for a lot more people without resorting to MTOW Increases and get's them close to 5,000NM at MZFW?

Revelation wrote:

travelhound wrote:

If I remember correctly Boeing originally proposed the 787-9 and 10 to have a larger wing. I am not too sure if that wing would still be feasible and how much of a gain the 787-10 from using it.

What was said was the bigger wing did not earn its keep. The extra lift was negated by the extra weight and the extra manufacturing complexity. One thing helping the 787 family is lower weights. Since they and their competitor are using the same generation engines (in particular T1000-TEN and TXWB are the same tech) the lower weight is significant.

Maybe things have changed in the decade since the decision was made, but maybe not enough to matter. Significantly, Boeing has used the 787 wing tech to create the new 777x wing and presumably will be doing another iteration with 797/NMA so by the time those projects are done they may go back and address the 787 family. A complicating factor may be that the 787 wings are manufactured largely by the Japanese heavies who may or may not want to invest more in the product.

trav777 wrote:

The SA article shows the 78J with a 8%-7% seatmile fuel burn advantage across its entire range envelope, from 2000nm (8) to 6000nm (7). .

trav777 wrote:

The advantage to the 78J won't decrease with cargo- weight is weight and the competing jet will be carrying the same additional load. .

trav777 wrote:

SQ is flying 70pax light of brochure on LAX-SIN in their 359. that's basically the same as UA carries on their same city pair but UA has a nearly 8% fuel burn advantage...pax-on-pax this is the difference between the two families. I know you're not doing it at all but some would be better to just accept these facts.

trav777 wrote:

If the sales since deliveries began of the 359 are any measure of success, they're on the right track with their strategy.

I cannot emphasize this enough- since the 359 *actually* got delivered to commercial service, it has 82 net orders. In five years. This is incredibly troubling for that manufacturer. Their brandest newest effectively flagship jet (the 380 is dead) has been outsold handily by their own warmed over stopgap 330NEO. I know people here are massive fans of this plane but the market hasn't been since it went into service.

trav777 wrote:

So why would Boeing copy something they're beating 4.5:1 over the past half-decade?

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

travelhound wrote:

If I remember correctly Boeing originally proposed the 787-9 and 10 to have a larger wing. I am not too sure if that wing would still be feasible and how much of a gain the 787-10 from using it.

What was said was the bigger wing did not earn its keep. The extra lift was negated by the extra weight and the extra manufacturing complexity. One thing helping the 787 family is lower weights. Since they and their competitor are using the same generation engines (in particular T1000-TEN and TXWB are the same tech) the lower weight is significant.

Maybe things have changed in the decade since the decision was made, but maybe not enough to matter. Significantly, Boeing has used the 787 wing tech to create the new 777x wing and presumably will be doing another iteration with 797/NMA so by the time those projects are done they may go back and address the 787 family. A complicating factor may be that the 787 wings are manufactured largely by the Japanese heavies who may or may not want to invest more in the product.

That's were Boeing is probably going to end up. A wing to boost payload range into what most legacy's want; fly a full load from Asia into Europe / US. Looking at your time table, that might be end next decade, which seems far out. Maybe Japan remains a good option.

waly777 wrote:

What legacies exactly are asking for a longer range 78X? This is Anet fantasy. Airlines are spoilt for choice on aircraft capable of those distances from the 788 all the way up to the 388.

I really do not understand the logic in thinking the 78X needs longer legs. The 789 and 359 do exactly those missions very efficiently.

"The carrier decided not to order the 787 for a variety of reasons. “The 787-9 is too small for our requirements and the 787-10 does not have the necessary range for around 40% of the destinations,” says Carsten Spohr, CEO of the passenger airline division."
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/lufthansa-commits-777-9x-and-a350-900

keesje wrote:

waly777 wrote:

What legacies exactly are asking for a longer range 78X? This is Anet fantasy. Airlines are spoilt for choice on aircraft capable of those distances from the 788 all the way up to the 388.

I really do not understand the logic in thinking the 78X needs longer legs. The 789 and 359 do exactly those missions very efficiently.

The legacy's didn't ask for a bigger longer range 78X. Now they are replacing their 777s with A350 now. BA, AF, JAL, United, Cathay, Delta, Qatar, Singapore, must I go on? LH once called a spade a spade:

"The carrier decided not to order the 787 for a variety of reasons. “The 787-9 is too small for our requirements and the 787-10 does not have the necessary range for around 40% of the destinations,” says Carsten Spohr, CEO of the passenger airline division."
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/lufthansa-commits-777-9x-and-a350-900

A 787 MTOW bump of 20-30t would do the job, but probably require significant modifications and use a newer engine.

keesje wrote:

waly777 wrote:

What legacies exactly are asking for a longer range 78X? This is Anet fantasy. Airlines are spoilt for choice on aircraft capable of those distances from the 788 all the way up to the 388.

I really do not understand the logic in thinking the 78X needs longer legs. The 789 and 359 do exactly those missions very efficiently.

The legacy's didn't ask for a bigger longer range 78X. Now they are replacing their 777s with A350 now. BA, AF, JAL, United, Cathay, Delta, Qatar, Singapore, must I go on? LH once called a spade a spade:

"The carrier decided not to order the 787 for a variety of reasons. “The 787-9 is too small for our requirements and the 787-10 does not have the necessary range for around 40% of the destinations,” says Carsten Spohr, CEO of the passenger airline division."
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/lufthansa-commits-777-9x-and-a350-900

A 787 MTOW bump of 20-30t would do the job, but probably require significant modifications and use a newer engine.

keesje wrote:

A 787 MTOW bump of 20-30t would do the job, but probably require significant modifications and use a newer engine.

Eyad89 wrote:

And in the half-decade after 787's first flight, A350 outsold 787 by a ratio of 3.5:1.

See, those figures are just meaningless.

keesje wrote:

The legacy's...are replacing their 777s with A350 now. BA, AF, JAL, United, Cathay, Delta, Qatar, Singapore, must I go on?

enzo011 wrote:

Lies, damned lies and statistics. You can prove anything you want by using statistics if you use the parameters that suit your argument. It may just be that the A350 is mediocre and will not have many more sales. The line should then be expected to close in 2025-27 when the current backlog is reached and very few sales are recorded from here on in. I think that is the argument being made right now.