The 787- 10 can only be produced at North Charleston, not at Everett, because the center section is made at North Charleston and is too long to be carried aboard a Dreamlifter. Right there, that limits potential 787-10 production to around half of total 787 production at any given time. Right now, the output is a good deal less than that, as it appears 787-10 frames are still taking longer to build than 787-9s. That will change as more are built. But for right now the 787-10 is quite capacity constrained.
And I believe prices are reflecting that. Boeing in the last couple years has started offering much more aggressive discounts on 787-9s. There’s no evidence that they’ve done the same, yet, with 787-10s. As long as that remains true, the 787-10 will be attractive only to those customers who can get a whole lot of revenue out of the marginal passenger and cargo capacity.
When Charleston is ready to crank out nothing but 787-10s, I suspect the real-world price of them will drop, and we’ll see quite a few more orders. I’d think anyone who flies A330-300s on regional or transatlantic missions could be a customer, as could existing 787 operators who are flying 777-200s on those sorts of missions (looking at you, AA).
AA's 789 already has 289 seats and their most common 77E configuration has only 273 seats despite being 10-abreast (mostly owing to the 7 extra J seats in the 77E). Even if AA put more J in the 789, they could probably still fit 270 seats in. No need for 78X unless it gets TPAC range and China stops being a bloodbath.
I see some candidates mentioned in this thread.
My 2 cents:
Likely: KE, LY. Top ups: KL, NH, BA.
Maybe: AA, LH, SV, AF, AC.
Not likely: ET, QR, KQ.
Some Chines carriers will also get likely get them. TG is a good candidate too. I still believe the 787-10 is perfect for EI, despite them operating an all-Airbus widebody fleet currently.
Yeah, Chinese carriers probably will. They seem perfect for the CN3, and we can add TK to the list.
The 787-10 would be a great replacement for some of AA's 772's It work great out of ORD and MIA.
AA no longer uses the 777 from ORD; only 788s. The 78X would be a huge increase in capacity. AA's 789 has more capacity than their 772s, as well as more range and fuel efficiency. While the 78X has more space for cargo, its payload is less than 789 due to having higher OEW for the same MTOW, making it unsuitable as a cargo replacement for the 77E.
Are there any airlines with sizable older A330-300 and B777-200ERS apart from BA and AA that haven’t ordered replacements yet ?
Swiss doesn't have the 77E and LH Group will get them whatever they need. Thai already ordered the A359 and 789.
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?
I agree; EK, CN3, and the other Asian carriers are likely to become the largest 78X operators. It can do everything the A333 does, only better. Large A333 operators that don't have all-Airbus fleets are likely to order the 78X. AA is not one of them. The range of the 78X isn't the issue, it's just not the right plane for AA.
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.
But once it gets PIP'd you can expect the 78X to become the bestseller just like the 77W did and the A321 is going in that direction.
And if JAL were to use their 351s on domestic routes, no doubt they will get wear out, too, in no time.
I believe the 777 is certified for two thirds more cycles than the A350. Would someone please post a link to the A350 LOV.
As I noted before, the 777 will hold up to short flights as well as an A320. 60,000 cycles is a good 20 year life.
But this is a 787 thread. They are built for 66,000 cycles. Absolutely unprecedented for a widebody.
This is why AA may choose to keep the 77E until they replace it with more 789 or the 78X gets PIP'd up to DFW-NRT range: the 77E lasts a long time, are only used on long routes (so low cycles) are paid off, offer a competitive product, are relatively efficient with 10-abreast Y, and they have a whopping 47 of them. The widebody MD-80.
John Wang, Founder and President of Inland Streamliner.