Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
MIflyer12 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:The 787-10 has a massive cargo hold so when folks say things like....."well yeah....but it can't fly LAX-TLV with a full load," I just laugh. As one of the other posters stated, if every plane flew with an absolutely full cargo hold the 77L would have sold a 1,000 copies. In reality it sold less than one hundred.
I think Lightsaber nailed it. 35t of payload gets you from pretty much anywhere in Europe to the West Coast with a 787-10. That's sounds very good to me. With the addition of PIP's I also agree with many that the 787-10 will increase significantly in capability as the A330 has over the years.
Don't feed the trolls. Lightsaber in post #9 gave the answer needed.
SFOtoORD wrote:keesje wrote:An 787-10 can take 40 LD3, an impressive number. If a filled LD3 container weigh on average 1400kg and holds 300 passengers on average, with a little headwind, you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO. And youcan play soccer lower deck. KLM probably can better utilize the 772ER's to Asia and A333s east coast.
Let’s see:
1. You and others conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo.
2. Then a well run airline schedules the thing you say is implausible.
3. Rather than consider the well run airline might know what they’re doing you instead make an absurd statement about playing soccer in the lower deck.
Not very impressive.
lightsaber wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.
I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.
Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%. I expect Boeing to keep working on weight (787-10 is new, so at least a ton to remove). Removed weight= more fuel or payload at range.
Lightsaber
gatibosgru wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:keesje wrote:An 787-10 can take 40 LD3, an impressive number. If a filled LD3 container weigh on average 1400kg and holds 300 passengers on average, with a little headwind, you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO. And youcan play soccer lower deck. KLM probably can better utilize the 772ER's to Asia and A333s east coast.
Let’s see:
1. You and others conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo.
2. Then a well run airline schedules the thing you say is implausible.
3. Rather than consider the well run airline might know what they’re doing you instead make an absurd statement about playing soccer in the lower deck.
Not very impressive.
Didn't they just confirm everything you're saying?
tkoenig95 wrote:With KLM discontinuing the 74M out of many cargo-heavy markets such as ORD, IAH and SFO what are they doing to recoup the lose of the cargo capacity?
NeBaNi wrote:lightsaber wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.
I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.
Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%. I expect Boeing to keep working on weight (787-10 is new, so at least a ton to remove). Removed weight= more fuel or payload at range.
Lightsaber
Based on this, the engines should amount to a total fuel burn improvement of 7.5% - 11%. That's almost like a re-engine, if you look at the upper set of numbers. Mind boggling!
Do you know when these PIPs are scheduled to EIS? And also, if GE is planning this, then RR has to have something up its sleeve to compete, no?
Also, regarding your weight reduction prediction, I suspect removing a ton will be harder on modern designs like that 787 and the A350 than it was for older designs, because these aircraft are designed using extensive FEA / CFD, with the tools getting better and better. So the weight should already be reduced to a greater degree even before the frames are under production.
lightsaber wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.
I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.
Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%.
Lightsaber
SteelChair wrote:
If accurate, that is simply amazing. Already the best engine in its class (by far imho), they are now going to cut fuel consumption by almost 10%?!?!?
ElroyJetson wrote:
If you want to fly 40T 6000 nm or more sure.....an A350 or 777X will be great. For the 95% of long haul missions that do not need to fly 40 or more tons that far the 787-10 looks pretty damn good imho.
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.
lightsaber wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.
I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.
Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%. I expect Boeing to keep working on weight (787-10 is new, so at least a ton to remove). Removed weight= more fuel or payload at range.
What is the KLM seat map? How many tons of people? . Then 4t per pallet. I'm curious how the 35t will be allocated.
Lightsaber
Lightsaber
SFOtoORD wrote:gatibosgru wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:
Let’s see:
1. You and others conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo.
2. Then a well run airline schedules the thing you say is implausible.
3. Rather than consider the well run airline might know what they’re doing you instead make an absurd statement about playing soccer in the lower deck.
Not very impressive.
Didn't they just confirm everything you're saying?
I’m not clear which “they” you’re referring to. But I’m going to trust that KLM knows what they’re doing rather than make silly comments.
gatibosgru wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:gatibosgru wrote:8
Didn't they just confirm everything you're saying?
I’m not clear which “they” you’re referring to. But I’m going to trust that KLM knows what they’re doing rather than make silly comments.
From keesje's post and that alone it seems he confirmed all the points you made, and didn't challenge. So I'm confused by your reply.
1. keesje literally said "you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO", so not sure what you mean by "You... conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo."
2. keesje, at least on the post quoted, never said it was implausible
3. I took the "playing soccer in the lower deck" statement to once again reaffirm that there is ample cargo space, nothing silly about it.
So again, not sure where they are questioning KLM's decision.
MrHMSH wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:
If you want to fly 40T 6000 nm or more sure.....an A350 or 777X will be great. For the 95% of long haul missions that do not need to fly 40 or more tons that far the 787-10 looks pretty damn good imho.
You didn't respond to my comment last time out on a similar subject, so I'll post it again here: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.
The 78X will not be the better choice for 95% of long haul missions, long haul is greater than 8/9 hours, and the 78X will not fly 95% of long haul missions, there will be an overlap where it's possible to fly the 78X and it will be competitive, but at some point it just makes more sense to fly something with more capability. Don't forget: at present most widebody airliners delivered have more capability (way more A359s and 789s than 78Xs and A330s on order). If the 78X was as good as you imply then there would be very little reason for airlines to order more capable airliners... the market at present disagrees.
keesje wrote:gatibosgru wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:8
I’m not clear which “they” you’re referring to. But I’m going to trust that KLM knows what they’re doing rather than make silly comments.
From keesje's post and that alone it seems he confirmed all the points you made, and didn't challenge. So I'm confused by your reply.
1. keesje literally said "y[threeid][/threeid]ou can perfectly fly AMS-SFO", so not sure what you mean by "You... conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo."
2. keesje, at least on the post quoted, never said it was implausible
3. I took the "playing soccer in the lower deck" statement to once again reaffirm that there is ample cargo space, nothing silly about it.
So again, not sure where they are questioning KLM's decision.
To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.
ElroyJetson wrote:The question has been answered definitively. 35t of payload 5000 nm westbound in winter. That is far more than a few LD3's. It is approximately 10t of cargo.
armchairceonr1 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:The question has been answered definitively. 35t of payload 5000 nm westbound in winter. That is far more than a few LD3's. It is approximately 10t of cargo.
How you get 10 t gargo with full pax? KLM have 338 seats in their 787-10s, 100 kg per each is nearly 34 tonnes. There is hardly any cargo with full pax load. And yes, you can play soccer on the cargo hold.
sabby wrote:armchairceonr1 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:The question has been answered definitively. 35t of payload 5000 nm westbound in winter. That is far more than a few LD3's. It is approximately 10t of cargo.
How you get 10 t gargo with full pax? KLM have 338 seats in their 787-10s, 100 kg per each is nearly 34 tonnes. There is hardly any cargo with full pax load. And yes, you can play soccer on the cargo hold.
Actually, wiki says KLM configured their 787-10s at 344 pax so the full pax and bags payload is nearly 35T. Personally, I feel this thread was started to invite more fighting than actual discussion, especially if you read the title and the first post.
787-10 is a beautiful and efficient machine, designed to be the best at what it does, but it wasn't designed to make all other types of aircrafts obsolete. Just because the 787-10 can fly 95% of Emirates' mission does not guarantee it will fly 95% of the long hauls of all other airlines. Different airlines use their aircrafts differently and even they configure them differently as per their needs. There is no silver bullet such as 787 or A350 that will kill all other planes.
qf789 wrote:
wiki is wrong, its 338 seats 38 business, 36 economy comfort and 264 economy seats
https://blueswandaily.com/klm-to-deploy ... ed-report/
ElroyJetson wrote:
My 95% figure comes from Tim Clark with EK who said the 787-10 can fly 90-95% of the routes in EK's network.
If you look at an airline like DL, they have less than 10 routes over 6000 nm. It is a tiny fraction of what they fly, and the same is true for most major airlines. For example, BA only has two route in the 6000 nm category.....LHR-EZE and LHR-SIN.
A-net fanboys love to talk about ULH, but the reality is those flights are uncommon. Too many long haul aircraft are simply over built imho. Airbus figured this out and sold a lot of A 330's because many airlines simply did not need all the range of larger, heavier aircraft.
I believe as airlines begin to fully understand the 787-10's capabilities it will sell in steadily building numbers like the A330.
sabby wrote:qf789 wrote:
wiki is wrong, its 338 seats 38 business, 36 economy comfort and 264 economy seats
https://blueswandaily.com/klm-to-deploy ... ed-report/
Thanks, I was wondering 344 is a bit dense , especially with 38 J seats at 1-2-1 layout. Boeing standard config is 336 I think, although they probably use 2-2-2 layout.
sabby wrote:qf789 wrote:
wiki is wrong, its 338 seats 38 business, 36 economy comfort and 264 economy seats
https://blueswandaily.com/klm-to-deploy ... ed-report/
Thanks, I was wondering 344 is a bit dense , especially with 38 J seats at 1-2-1 layout. Boeing standard config is 336 I think, although they probably use 2-2-2 layout.
A388 wrote:Seeing that the KLM 787-10 will replace their 747-400, Will KLM also use their 787-10 to Curacao seeing that they use their 747-400 to Curacao now?
EDIT: Sorry, I see now their 787-10 will replace the 747 Combi versions. Never mind. Which aircraft will their A350-900 replace?
A388
lightsaber wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.
I'm aware of 3 engine PIPs planned for GE:
1. CMC fixed inlet to turbine
2. 2nd stage of high turbine
3. 1st stage of high turbine.
Each PIP should cut fuel burn 2.5% to 3.5%. I expect Boeing to keep working on weight (787-10 is new, so at least a ton to remove). Removed weight= more fuel or payload at range.
What is the KLM seat map? How many tons of people? . Then 4t per pallet. I'm curious how the 35t will be allocated.
Lightsaber
Lightsaber
Flanker7 wrote:sabby wrote:Thanks, I was wondering 344 is a bit dense , especially with 38 J seats at 1-2-1 layout. Boeing standard config is 336 I think, although they probably use 2-2-2 layout.
No 2-2-2 layout it's going to be the same as the 787-9
B752OS wrote:I am going to go out on a limb and say that KLM knows what they have with the 787-10 far better than any pissing contest that develops in these threads. Which usually turns into a number of people insinuating that the A350 easily beats the B787 across the board and every airline that ordered the 787 should have and wishes they had ordered the 350 instead.
keesje wrote:gatibosgru wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:8
I’m not clear which “they” you’re referring to. But I’m going to trust that KLM knows what they’re doing rather than make silly comments.
From keesje's post and that alone it seems he confirmed all the points you made, and didn't challenge. So I'm confused by your reply.
1. keesje literally said "you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO", so not sure what you mean by "You... conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo."
2. keesje, at least on the post quoted, never said it was implausible
3. I took the "playing soccer in the lower deck" statement to once again reaffirm that there is ample cargo space, nothing silly about it.
So again, not sure where they are questioning KLM's decision.
To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.
SFOtoORD wrote:keesje wrote:gatibosgru wrote:
From keesje's post and that alone it seems he confirmed all the points you made, and didn't challenge. So I'm confused by your reply.
1. keesje literally said "you can perfectly fly AMS-SFO", so not sure what you mean by "You... conjecture 78J can’t fly Europe to US West Coast w full load and some cargo."
2. keesje, at least on the post quoted, never said it was implausible
3. I took the "playing soccer in the lower deck" statement to once again reaffirm that there is ample cargo space, nothing silly about it.
So again, not sure where they are questioning KLM's decision.
To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.
Is it remotely possible they have data that you don’t have access to? Possibly from real world testing or pending performance improvements? You write as if you are the lead Boeing engineer on the project rather than just another person on anet.
keesje wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:keesje wrote:
To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.
Is it remotely possible they have data that you don’t have access to? Possibly from real world testing or pending performance improvements? You write as if you are the lead Boeing engineer on the project rather than just another person on anet.
No, it's simply specifications and distances. No magic in the air
sabby wrote:armchairceonr1 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:The question has been answered definitively. 35t of payload 5000 nm westbound in winter. That is far more than a few LD3's. It is approximately 10t of cargo.
How you get 10 t gargo with full pax? KLM have 338 seats in their 787-10s, 100 kg per each is nearly 34 tonnes. There is hardly any cargo with full pax load. And yes, you can play soccer on the cargo hold.
Actually, wiki says KLM configured their 787-10s at 344 pax so the full pax and bags payload is nearly 35T. Personally, I feel this thread was started to invite more fighting than actual discussion, especially if you read the title and the first post.
787-10 is a beautiful and efficient machine, designed to be the best at what it does, but it wasn't designed to make all other types of aircrafts obsolete. Just because the 787-10 can fly 95% of Emirates' mission does not guarantee it will fly 95% of the long hauls of all other airlines. Different airlines use their aircrafts differently and even they configure them differently as per their needs. There is no silver bullet such as 787 or A350 that will kill all other planes.
keesje wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:keesje wrote:
To be honest, based on numbers, west bound during winter, with the soecified 344 seats, I don't see more than a few LD3's at most being available for cargo on AMS-SFO. Nothing "decent". If you do not agree, please tell go a bit further than "KLM knows what it is doing". It's similar as e.g. "Boeing says so" and kind of hurts independent facts based reasoning.
Is it remotely possible they have data that you don’t have access to? Possibly from real world testing or pending performance improvements? You write as if you are the lead Boeing engineer on the project rather than just another person on anet.
No, it's simply specifications and distances. No magic in the air
whywhyzee wrote:sabby wrote:armchairceonr1 wrote:How you get 10 t gargo with full pax? KLM have 338 seats in their 787-10s, 100 kg per each is nearly 34 tonnes. There is hardly any cargo with full pax load. And yes, you can play soccer on the cargo hold.
Actually, wiki says KLM configured their 787-10s at 344 pax so the full pax and bags payload is nearly 35T. Personally, I feel this thread was started to invite more fighting than actual discussion, especially if you read the title and the first post.
787-10 is a beautiful and efficient machine, designed to be the best at what it does, but it wasn't designed to make all other types of aircrafts obsolete. Just because the 787-10 can fly 95% of Emirates' mission does not guarantee it will fly 95% of the long hauls of all other airlines. Different airlines use their aircrafts differently and even they configure them differently as per their needs. There is no silver bullet such as 787 or A350 that will kill all other planes.
With the corrected seat count of 338, let's call it 34 tons. At 5000nm still air, using Ferpe's payload range charts, which are naturally conservative, assuming the worst frame in life cycle at a 4% penalty, which KLM is not likely to recieve given that there has already been a reasonable amount of time in service, and 3 airlines now have at least one frame, there should be ample time to work most kinks out, that leaves 4 tons of cargo, agreed, not much, but also not insignificant. That is also assuming an absolutely full load in the cabin, which is unlikely to occur every flight.
tisr123 wrote:seabosdca wrote:Ugh, this again. Over a route of this length, the 787-10 is perfectly capable of carrying a full passenger + bags load and a typical cargo load. Can KLM fill up that giant hold with fruit? No. But that's not usually what it needs to carry on a route like this anyway.
The 787-10 is just fine on almost all TATL service, unless the eastern destination is somewhere like TLV. Where it is limited is on TPAC and, to some extent, on East Asia to Europe.
I don't see a reason why the 787-10 won't be able to do JFK/EWR-TLV.
sabby wrote:whywhyzee wrote:sabby wrote:
Actually, wiki says KLM configured their 787-10s at 344 pax so the full pax and bags payload is nearly 35T. Personally, I feel this thread was started to invite more fighting than actual discussion, especially if you read the title and the first post.
787-10 is a beautiful and efficient machine, designed to be the best at what it does, but it wasn't designed to make all other types of aircrafts obsolete. Just because the 787-10 can fly 95% of Emirates' mission does not guarantee it will fly 95% of the long hauls of all other airlines. Different airlines use their aircrafts differently and even they configure them differently as per their needs. There is no silver bullet such as 787 or A350 that will kill all other planes.
With the corrected seat count of 338, let's call it 34 tons. At 5000nm still air, using Ferpe's payload range charts, which are naturally conservative, assuming the worst frame in life cycle at a 4% penalty, which KLM is not likely to recieve given that there has already been a reasonable amount of time in service, and 3 airlines now have at least one frame, there should be ample time to work most kinks out, that leaves 4 tons of cargo, agreed, not much, but also not insignificant. That is also assuming an absolutely full load in the cabin, which is unlikely to occur every flight.
I think someone updated that the latest article says the configuration is at 344 pax.
Anyway, your calculations look about right and that is what I said in my first post in this thread. Some airlines would use 787-10 at full payload at ~4000nm (or less if operated from hot/high airports), some would use it to carry 330+ pax to 5700+nm and some if not most, like KLM, would use it to haul a lot of people along side cargo as per their load on that day. Doesn't mean all the airlines need this particular plane but also it means many airlines will utilize it for different purposes. Anyone who claims that either of the 787-10 or the A350-900 is better than the other at every use-cases, either they lack understanding or just trolling/fanboying and hence should be ignored.
JayinKitsap wrote:I think we all will be 'surprised' at the routes the 787-10 flies with ease in a few years.