questions wrote:

Are there any open orders for the 788, or is it an irrelevant aircraft now?

questions wrote:

Are there any open orders for the 788, or is it an irrelevant aircraft now?

Newbiepilot wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

ssreekanth2000 wrote:

Does the 787-9 have greater range than the A350-900?

It's on the chart but it's seems to be out of the running because it is stuck in the 'too small' category. I guess it's doomed. The 779 didn't even make the chart.

I belive that chart was created by Airbus marketing who was trying to tell United that world demand was perfectly centered on what the A350-900 could do. According to Airbus the 787 just isnt the right size despite having 1300+ orders

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

It's on the chart but it's seems to be out of the running because it is stuck in the 'too small' category. I guess it's doomed. The 779 didn't even make the chart.

I belive that chart was created by Airbus marketing who was trying to tell United that world demand was perfectly centered on what the A350-900 could do. According to Airbus the 787 just isnt the right size despite having 1300+ orders

No, it was United, one of the biggest Boeing operators and both 787-10 and A350 customers.

And I think, in the end, Boeing will develop a slightly bigger wing for the 787-10, possibly -11. Unless the heavy weight 777-8 becomes a hit after all.

Just because of what United indicates; 8000NM / 300-350 seats is a kind of centre of the market, a space that Boeing used to dominate with the 777-200ER/300ER.

The A350 basically took over there. (AF, BA, UA, DL, SQ, CX, JAL etc, etc)

Years ago I opened a topic on this topic. Henry Lam made some sketches. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1339277

seabosdca wrote:

You'll need a new center wing box, designed to accommodate bigger/heavier gear, to get that done. And once you've made everything heavier, the engines more powerful, and the wings bigger, don't you basically have an A350-900?

seabosdca wrote:

questions wrote:

Are there any open orders for the 788, or is it an irrelevant aircraft now?

Of the 86 788s on order, there are:

18 for Aeroflot (almost certain to be canceled)
10 for Iraq (likely to be canceled)

So that's 58 actually likely to be delivered. 22 are for AA, and the remaining 36 are scattered between a whole bunch of operators but all look reasonably solid. There might be further top-ups from some of the smaller operators who benefit from the -8's lower trip cost.

LAX772LR wrote:

Flame away, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see DL order some 789+78X in the future if the price and availability became right.

Replace newer 767s and the 77Es.

Yes I'm well aware they'll have A339 and A359.

seabosdca wrote:

keesje wrote:

The 787-10 has kind of the same "small wing" syndrome as the A321. It wants further, but lacks the wing
with 40t payload, (280 passengers, headwind, reserves and well filled cargo containers); <5000Nm

5000Nm is to / from Asia. Where the growth is.

Everything that has come out of Boeing indicates that the limit on the 787-10's MTOW (and that of the 787-9, for that matter) is the landing gear, not the wing. Not disputing that at higher weights the wing might be too small for optimum efficiency at long range, but it's the landing gear that imposes the hard limit.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

JoeCanuck wrote:

It's on the chart but it's seems to be out of the running because it is stuck in the 'too small' category. I guess it's doomed. The 779 didn't even make the chart.

I belive that chart was created by Airbus marketing who was trying to tell United that world demand was perfectly centered on what the A350-900 could do. According to Airbus the 787 just isnt the right size despite having 1300+ orders

No, it was United, one of the biggest Boeing operators and both 787-10 and A350 customers.

And I think, in the end, Boeing will develop a slightly bigger wing for the 787-10, possibly -11. Unless the heavy weight 777-8 becomes a hit after all.

Just because of what United indicates; 8000NM / 300-350 seats is a kind of centre of the market, a space that Boeing used to dominate with the 777-200ER/300ER.

The A350 basically took over there. (AF, BA, UA, DL, SQ, CX, JAL etc, etc)

Years ago I opened a topic on this topic. Henry Lam made some sketches. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1339277

LAX772LR wrote:

Flame away, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see DL order some 789+78X in the future if the price and availability became right.

MileHFL400 wrote:

Are there any airlines with sizable older A330-300 and B777-200ERS apart from BA and AA that haven’t ordered replacements yet ?

Momo1435 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Are there any airlines with sizable older A330-300 and B777-200ERS apart from BA and AA that haven’t ordered replacements yet ?

Korean Air
Thai Airways
Swiss
Alitalia

ElroyJetson wrote:

The 787-10 is a 6000 nm plane with full pax and bags. That is plenty enough range for 95% of the long haul flights out there. Now if you need to fly an additional 1000 nm sure use a bigger, heavier, and less fuel efficient plane.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The 787-10 is a 6000 nm plane with full pax and bags. That is plenty enough range for 95% of the long haul flights out there. Now if you need to fly an additional 1000 nm sure use a bigger, heavier, and less fuel efficient plane.

pabloeing wrote:

A "real" range for the B78X is 5000nm.....fantastic plane for Europe to west and east america routes like FRA-LAX or LHR-JFK

keesje wrote:

pabloeing wrote:

A "real" range for the B78X is 5000nm.....fantastic plane for Europe to west and east america routes like FRA-LAX or LHR-JFK

MileHFL400 wrote:

Most airlines don’t even utilize max range of most of the aircraft that they order so why is the -10’s lack of range an issue all of a sudden?

LAX772LR wrote:

Flame away, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see DL order some 789+78X in the future if the price and availability became right.

Replace newer 767s and the 77Es.

Yes I'm well aware they'll have A339 and A359.

MileHFL400 wrote:

Momo1435 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Are there any airlines with sizable older A330-300 and B777-200ERS apart from BA and AA that haven’t ordered replacements yet ?

Korean Air
Thai Airways
Swiss
Alitalia

I think we can forget about Alitalia!

MIflyer12 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Most airlines don’t even utilize max range of most of the aircraft that they order so why is the -10’s lack of range an issue all of a sudden?

Because it's a.net, and some people just have a need to be that way.

Look at the routes flown by the carriers you consider prospects for 787-10s. Delta, for example, has 21 764 from 2000-2002, and 11 332s from 2004-2006. Every route flown by those aircraft can be flown by a 787-10. Carrier routes maps and planespotters.net's aircraft databases are your friends.

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.

gwrudolph wrote:

I agree with you. I would t be surprised to see DL eventually order some 78Js

keesje wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Most airlines don’t even utilize max range of most of the aircraft that they order so why is the -10’s lack of range an issue all of a sudden?

Because it's a.net, and some people just have a need to be that way.

Look at the routes flown by the carriers you consider prospects for 787-10s. Delta, for example, has 21 764 from 2000-2002, and 11 332s from 2004-2006. Every route flown by those aircraft can be flown by a 787-10. Carrier routes maps and planespotters.net's aircraft databases are your friends.

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

MileHFL400 wrote:

Hey all.

With Etihad and United having both received their 1st B787-10 I wanted to re-examine future sales?

1. What’s the hold up on Emirates firming their order for 40?

2. Have the leasing companies managed to place more apart from with KLM and EVA?

3. American Airlines replacing 777-200’s?

keesje wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Most airlines don’t even utilize max range of most of the aircraft that they order so why is the -10’s lack of range an issue all of a sudden?

Because it's a.net, and some people just have a need to be that way.

Look at the routes flown by the carriers you consider prospects for 787-10s. Delta, for example, has 21 764 from 2000-2002, and 11 332s from 2004-2006. Every route flown by those aircraft can be flown by a 787-10. Carrier routes maps and planespotters.net's aircraft databases are your friends.

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

MrHMSH wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

The 787-10 is a 6000 nm plane with full pax and bags. That is plenty enough range for 95% of the long haul flights out there. Now if you need to fly an additional 1000 nm sure use a bigger, heavier, and less fuel efficient plane.

6000nm is a bit of an exaggeration when you factor in real world considerations, the A330 for example has a very similar range its longest route at present is just under 5200nm (SZX-LHR). Add cargo and that number drops, and realistically most airlines flying that far will fly cargo. More to the point though is that while it may be possible to fly the 78X on a route, that doesn't mean it is the most economic choice for the route. The A359 and 789 offer more flexibility and capability while still being good on the shorter routes, and additionally the 78X doesn't seem to have the much-reduced cost to manufacture.

95% of long haul flying is too optimistic a figure IMO.

parapente wrote:

From where Emirates sits geographically I can see how the 787X could be very useful/economical particularly to secondary cities in Europe (they already do all the primary cities).Would also work well into parts of Africa-And Asia.
With BA (don't think they have announced anything) one assumes it's for London to East cost N America destinations -only? Would be highly economical on such flights.The distances are short enough (just) to carry a full load of cargo too.There may be others such as Moscow?

keesje wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Most airlines don’t even utilize max range of most of the aircraft that they order so why is the -10’s lack of range an issue all of a sudden?

Because it's a.net, and some people just have a need to be that way.

Look at the routes flown by the carriers you consider prospects for 787-10s. Delta, for example, has 21 764 from 2000-2002, and 11 332s from 2004-2006. Every route flown by those aircraft can be flown by a 787-10. Carrier routes maps and planespotters.net's aircraft databases are your friends.

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

ewt340 wrote:

Seems like currently the sweet spots are:

A330-300 and their 6300nm range
B787-9 and their 7600nm range
*Both have extremely similar capacity, just different range and availability.

And the other sweet spots are:
A350-900 and their 8000nm range
10-abreast B777-300ER and their 7400nm range.

A330-300 and B777-300ER sales are slowing down fast, while A350-900 and B787-9 are selling like hot cakes.

So B787-10 comes to play in between this market. While it have the nice capacity of A350-900 which airlines love, and the commonality with B787-9, the lack of range makes it less flexible.
While the fuel efficiency is amazing, it still can't do heavy duty routes like A350-900 did.
And while the 6400 nm range is nice like A330-300, the large capacity of B787-10 is too much on some routes, after all Frequency does matter to Premium Passengers.

So lack of flexibility in range and capacity is the main problems for B787-10. I don't see this plane going further than B787-8.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Hey all.

With Etihad and United having both received their 1st B787-10 I wanted to re-examine future sales?

1. What’s the hold up on Emirates firming their order for 40?

2. Have the leasing companies managed to place more apart from with KLM and EVA?

3. American Airlines replacing 777-200’s?

So UA - which has them on order - doesn’t seem them as an ideal 77E replacement, and LH has said that they aren’t the best fit for them.

Any thoughts on the OP queries?

ElroyJetson wrote:

And also about 30% more costly to operate.

WIederling wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

And also about 30% more costly to operate.

Only if you can work it without payload reduction.

When you have reduced payload on the 7810 by 30% but are still at full payload for the A340NG
that advantage has vanished. Think about why LH is profitable with their alleged fuel guzzlers.

lightsaber wrote:

The issue with the A359 is a lack of 2019 to 2022 production slots to win new orders.

Lightsaber

MileHFL400 wrote:

whywhyzee wrote:

I could see AC ordering them for high volume TATL routes, but that will have to come once they feel comfortable with another period of significant growty, seeing as they have basicially just completed their widebody renewal project. The A333s have another decade left, and that fleet will likely continue to grow gradually short term.

AC let their 787 options expire.

Has China Southern shown any interest?

WIederling wrote:

When you have reduced payload on the 7810 by 30% but are still at full payload for the A340NG
that advantage has vanished. Think about why LH is profitable with their alleged fuel guzzlers.

seabosdca wrote:

WIederling wrote:

When you have reduced payload on the 7810 by 30% but are still at full payload for the A340NG
that advantage has vanished. Think about why LH is profitable with their alleged fuel guzzlers.

You would only take that sort of payload reduction on certain LH routes, and that's why LH has A350s. From Germany, the 787-10 could carry MZFW to all of the US, the Middle East, and any place they are likely to fly in Africa. They could carry full passenger payload plus some cargo to India and most of Centrral/South America. The only places where range is really a problem are East/Southeast Asia, South Africa, and deep South America.

LH just told us that they want to speed up A340 replacement, and are evaluating both the A350 and 787 to do so. The results will tell us something about whether flexibility or the lowest possible CASM brings more financial benefit (although they will also tell us something about current pricing by the two OEMs).

Flighty wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

WIederling wrote:

When you have reduced payload on the 7810 by 30% but are still at full payload for the A340NG
that advantage has vanished. Think about why LH is profitable with their alleged fuel guzzlers.

You would only take that sort of payload reduction on certain LH routes, and that's why LH has A350s. From Germany, the 787-10 could carry MZFW to all of the US, the Middle East, and any place they are likely to fly in Africa. They could carry full passenger payload plus some cargo to India and most of Centrral/South America. The only places where range is really a problem are East/Southeast Asia, South Africa, and deep South America.

LH just told us that they want to speed up A340 replacement, and are evaluating both the A350 and 787 to do so. The results will tell us something about whether flexibility or the lowest possible CASM brings more financial benefit (although they will also tell us something about current pricing by the two OEMs).

The more we look at the 787-10, the less it looks like an "A333" as we historically see that, a ten hour jet. And the more it looks like a surgical twelve hour jet that can do certain jobs (like Germany-LAX and SFO?) at unbeatable unit cost.

The synergy with 789 means the 787-10 could become the backbone of more fleets than we realize, and use the 789 as an accessory where performance or weaker traffic demand.

nikeherc wrote:

On the question of 787-10 range: Is it 5000 or 6000 miles? Didn't Boeing change the way that they determine range to make it more realistic than it was in the past? If so, is 6000 miles that unrealistic?

nikeherc wrote:

On the question of 787-10 range: Is it 5000 or 6000 miles? Didn't Boeing change the way that they determine range to make it more realistic than it was in the past? If so, is 6000 miles that unrealistic?

Flighty wrote:

The 787-10 is officially 6,430nm. So my low quality estimate is 6,500 statute will be no problem for the 787-10 to do scheduled services. This opens up all of Lower48-Europe, and some West Coast to Asia. I think it might do SEA-HKG but probably not LAX-HKG. LAX-NE Asia appears to be in range. Those are big markets.