EK And The 787-10 / A359

sunrisevalley · Sun May 29, 2016 11:23 pm

Anything new on this ?

HALtheAI · Sun May 29, 2016 11:31 pm

I saw this a few days ago:

Quote:
http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/ne...es-mulls-ordering-sixty-more-a380s

Concerning Emirates' much awaited A350/B787 order, Clarke said evaluations were still ongoing with fifty aircraft to be ordered. He added that once a decision has been taken, the new aircraft would only arrive between 2023-25 by which time Emirates will have moved its hub from Dubai Int'l to Dubai World Central.

Not really surprising. Any remaining space at DXB has to be reserved for high capacity aircraft.

sunrisevalley · Mon May 30, 2016 1:27 am

Quoting HALtheAI (Reply 1):
I saw this a few days ago:

with that sort of delivery requirement there seems to be no hurry to do anything. Allows plenty of time for both A and B to refine their offerings.

American 767 · Mon May 30, 2016 2:33 am

Didn't EK cancel an order for A350s a while ago? I believe a couple of years ago.

hkcanadaexpat · Mon May 30, 2016 3:23 am

Quoting American 767 (Reply 3):
Didn't EK cancel an order for A350s a while ago? I believe a couple of years ago.

Yes they did. on the basis that the airplane built (specs) was not what they had initially signed up for (c/s design). now they are doing an RFP for 50-100 mid-haul planes. it has come down to the A359 vs the B787-10. both have their +s and -s given payload/range in hot weather airport. although the general consensus is that it is Boeing's to lose, i think its a much closer affair and can go either way. ideally, EK wants either aircraft "modified" to fit exactly what it needs in terms of performance (ala A380/B778+9). neither manufacturer has so far showed inclination to do so, hence here we are.
A

Bluebird191 · Mon May 30, 2016 3:55 am

Why doesn't EK go into the business of designing and building aircraft to suit what their business model needs?

Motorhussy · Mon May 30, 2016 4:00 am

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 4):
ideally, EK wants either aircraft "modified" to fit exactly what it needs in terms of performance (ala A380/B778+9).

I wonder just how different they would prefer the Airbus A359 Regional offering to be from that which SQ ordered back in 2013.

What different requirements do they have... hotter and dryer?

zeke · Mon May 30, 2016 4:06 am

Quoting Bluebird191 (Reply 5):

The middle east is filled with people who have ideas, a lot less with the ability to convert those ideas into practical solutions. Designing, building, certifying aircraft is a difficult task, just look at the attempts in China and Japan.

UAEflyer · Mon May 30, 2016 7:15 am

Quoting Bluebird191 (Reply 5):
Why doesn't EK go into the business of designing and building aircraft to suit what their business model needs?

Because they have Airbus & Boeing who is doing it for them. In every details of the 777X, EK was there and modified and changed alot, especially the new composite wing.
Not to mention the A380 program which is surviving because of EK.

bobdino · Mon May 30, 2016 7:22 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Thread starter):
Anything new on this ?

I believe Scott Hamilton (of Leeham) recently suggested that no decision would be made before Q4.

KarelXWB · Mon May 30, 2016 7:53 am

Quote:
2023-25

As expected, the new aircraft will not arrive before EK moves to DWC. Therefore Emirates are not in a hurry to place this order, both Airbus and Boeing have enough available delivery slots in that timeframe.

zeke · Mon May 30, 2016 8:08 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 11):
As expected, the new aircraft will not arrive before EK moves to DWC. Therefore Emirates are not in a hurry to place this order, both Airbus and Boeing have enough available delivery slots in that timeframe.

I found this rather strange as they are actively retiring their "regional" fleet.

mjoelnir · Mon May 30, 2016 10:22 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
I found this rather strange as they are actively retiring their "regional" fleet.

No space for a regional fleet at DXB.

Armodeen · Mon May 30, 2016 11:21 am

So if they move everything to B77W in the meantime, why bother with anything smaller at all?!

KarelXWB · Mon May 30, 2016 11:23 am

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 13):
So if they move everything to B77W in the meantime, why bother with anything smaller at all?!

Many analysts believe EK will eventually need smaller aircraft to better compete with other airlines on similar routes.

[Edited 2016-05-30 04:23:20]

mjoelnir · Mon May 30, 2016 11:40 am

Quoting Armodeen (Reply 13):
So if they move everything to B77W in the meantime, why bother with anything smaller at all?!

Everything to the A380 mainly, the 777-300ER seems to start on replacement and arrives in smaller numbers than the A380.

If you do not have the space and want to grow, you have to grow size instead of numbers of frames.

neutronstar73 · Mon May 30, 2016 11:41 am

Quoting hkcanadaexpat (Reply 4):
although the general consensus is that it is Boeing's to lose,

I don't know where that "consensus" decided that, because all I hear is that the opposite is true, due to concerns over the 787-10's performance in hot weather, so it appears that Airbus is in the lead.

And it is ridiculous to say "this is xx's to lose" line. Unless said company has a written contract, the "this is "so-and-so's" to lose" nonsense is, indeed nonsense.

zeke · Mon May 30, 2016 11:42 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 12):

Tell that to fly Dubai

qf002 · Mon May 30, 2016 11:47 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Tell that to fly Dubai

That's exactly what EK did -- http://gulfnews.com/business/aviatio...2017-dubai-airports-says-1.1826412

Ncfc99 · Mon May 30, 2016 12:14 pm

Quoting HALtheAI (Reply 1):
Quote:
http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/ne...es-mulls-ordering-sixty-more-a380s

Concerning Emirates' much awaited A350/B787 order, Clarke said evaluations were still ongoing with fifty aircraft to be ordered. He added that once a decision has been taken, the new aircraft would only arrive between 2023-25 by which time Emirates will have moved its hub from Dubai Int'l to Dubai World Central.

Not really surprising. Any remaining space at DXB has to be reserved for high capacity aircraft.

I hadn't seen it confirmed before that they will be moving between 2023-25, although it was pretty much assumed.

I can see the 350 winning this with a view to increasing the fleet with 3510 & 3511's (if it is built) for regional trunk routes.

Armodeen · Mon May 30, 2016 1:10 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 14):

Many analysts believe EK will eventually need smaller aircraft to better compete with other airlines on similar routes.

But if they switch everything to B77W/A380 for a number of years in the meantime, then either the route will accommodate that size of aircraft or it won't. They won't need smaller craft for their established markets.

That only leaves new markets to be opened with the smaller frames: Do they need 50 for that?

JerseyFlyer · Mon May 30, 2016 1:28 pm

Quoting HALtheAI (Reply 1):
the new aircraft would only arrive between 2023-25

There is no need to place an order in 2016 for delivery that far ahead if they are going for current version 359s or 7810s.

So maybe they want a launch order discount on a new development. Say a "simple stretch" of the 359, for example. Timed to EIS after the rumoured 350-8000.

mjoelnir · Mon May 30, 2016 2:25 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 17):
Tell that to fly Dubai

Why should I? I am talking about Emirates. Fly Dubai seems to have to move part of its operation to continue to grow.

sunrisevalley · Mon May 30, 2016 2:38 pm

EK's requirements for engine performance on hot days must present challenges to RR and GE. Especially if it is tied to warrantee's in someway

flyingcello · Mon May 30, 2016 2:44 pm

Given the timescale, 787-10X or A359X may be in play...

An "ER" version of the -10 has been considered before...maybe this is the order that makes it happen? And Boeing can roll any changes into the -9 too...

sunrisevalley · Mon May 30, 2016 3:17 pm

Quoting flyingcello (Reply 24):
An "ER" version of the -10 has been considered before...maybe this is the order that makes it happen? And Boeing can roll any changes into the -9 too...

The -ER version adds weight that needs power to get it into the air. I think Boeing can give them ~ a 12-hour airplane at about 137t DOW which will fly ~ 6000nm ESAD in any direction from DXB. I think the issue if there is one is all to do with how many engine cycles will be warranted at a specific takeoff temperature, say 50C.

Clipper101 · Mon May 30, 2016 3:49 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 11):
I found this rather strange as they are actively retiring their "regional" fleet.

You would expect older B777 to start covering for that role (they already did that for those routes which were traditional A330 destinations), besides an expected move to DWC, towards 2023-2025 their planning may be showing they would start to see a need for a plane playing the ‘regional’ role when they see most of their fleet is starting to shape around A380/B777X/B777ER (latest of the line)

mjoelnir · Mon May 30, 2016 3:55 pm

Quoting Clipper101 (Reply 26):
I found this rather strange as they are actively retiring their "regional" fleet.

You would expect older B777 to start covering for that role (they already did that for those routes which were traditional A330 destinations), besides an expected move to DWC, towards 2023-2025 their planning may be showing they would start to see a need for a plane playing the ‘regional’ role when they see most of their fleet is starting to shape around A380/B777X/B777ER (latest of the line)

End of 2017 their will not be any older 777 left, only 777-300ER and A380. While 777-300ER numbers will increase slowly, some new birds replacing old birds, the A380 fleet will grow significantly.

Clipper101 · Mon May 30, 2016 4:29 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 27):
End of 2017 their will not be any older 777 left, only 777-300ER and A380. While 777-300ER numbers will increase slowly, some new birds replacing old birds, the A380 fleet will grow significantly.

This is how I envisage it, B777ER’s started arriving 2005, 2017 the oldest of these may be start retiring (based on a 12-year operational life), at this time you would expect the cycle to start and repeat itself were the oldest B777ER’s would be suitable for ‘regional’ role while last of ER’s enter the fleet. Then deliveries of the B777X will start 2019-2020, as the oldest of the ER’s retire & the older would be suitable for ‘regional’, 2023 - 2025 the expected time of DWC you would expect a fleet of A380/B777X/B777ER’s the newest should be between 5 - 7 years old, the oldest is of 2011 - 2013 delivery (again, based on a 12-year operational life these could be totalling around 35 at that time).

Spiderguy252 · Mon May 30, 2016 5:23 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 25):
The -ER version adds weight that needs power to get it into the air. I think Boeing can give them ~ a 12-hour airplane at about 137t DOW which will fly ~ 6000nm ESAD in any direction from DXB. I think the issue if there is one is all to do with how many engine cycles will be warranted at a specific takeoff temperature, say 50C.

Why would Boeing do that though? It's clear that EK will use the 77W and in time, the 779 for such missions. The order for either one of the A350 or the B787 is more for regional flying which doesn't require the range you mention above.

zeke · Mon May 30, 2016 5:29 pm

Quoting Clipper101 (Reply 26):
You would expect older B777 to start covering for that role (they already did that for those routes which were traditional A330 destinations), besides an expected move to DWC, towards 2023-2025 their planning may be showing they would start to see a need for a plane playing the ‘regional’ role when they see most of their fleet is starting to shape around A380/B777X/B777ER (latest of the line)

That logic does not fit. Newer regional aircraft are very efficient.

mjoelnir · Mon May 30, 2016 5:41 pm

Quoting Clipper101 (Reply 28):
This is how I envisage it, B777ER’s started arriving 2005, 2017 the oldest of these may be start retiring (based on a 12-year operational life), at this time you would expect the cycle to start and repeat itself were the oldest B777ER’s would be suitable for ‘regional’ role while last of ER’s enter the fleet. Then deliveries of the B777X will start 2019-2020, as the oldest of the ER’s retire & the older would be suitable for ‘regional’, 2023 - 2025 the expected time of DWC you would expect a fleet of A380/B777X/B777ER’s the newest should be between 5 - 7 years old, the oldest is of 2011 - 2013 delivery (again, based on a 12-year operational life these could be totalling around 35 at that time).

The first 777-300ER will be retired this year.

Clipper101 · Mon May 30, 2016 6:14 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 30):

Quoting Clipper101 (Reply 26):
You would expect older B777 to start covering for that role (they already did that for those routes which were traditional A330 destinations), besides an expected move to DWC, towards 2023-2025 their planning may be showing they would start to see a need for a plane playing the ‘regional’ role when they see most of their fleet is starting to shape around A380/B777X/B777ER (latest of the line)

That logic does not fit. Newer regional aircraft are very efficient.

More efficient? Yes & how would you see these fit in when they are expecting more A380’s to join, along with more B777ER’s & they are expecting B777X; all at DXB, but you still have older B777ER’s ! Enlighten us?

sunrisevalley · Mon May 30, 2016 10:50 pm

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 29):
Why would Boeing do that though? The order for either one of the A350 or the B787 is more for regional flying which doesn't require the range you mention above.

My point was that if Boeing can deliver the 787-10 at 8t heavier than the 789 this is the range an operator can expect. In EK's case if they pass on crew rests they will save an addition ~1.5t.

enzo011 · Tue May 31, 2016 2:33 am

So if the new order is for delivery in only 2023 or later, does this mean the cancellation of the A350 order had less to do with what is being offered by Airbus and more to do with the reduced capacity requirements of EK? Seems to me that once EK committed to A380 and 77W/779 there isn't space in their fleet or at DXB for more aircraft and not the stated reasons as change of specification from Airbus being the main reason for cancellation.

The change of specification gave EK their way out of the contract, seeing that they once asked for more seats and range from the A35K (which Airbus duly delivered with the new specifications), they used this as their reason to cancel their order to cover for less than anticipated growth requirements.

Stitch · Tue May 31, 2016 3:38 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 34):
So if the new order is for delivery in only 2023 or later, does this mean the cancellation of the A350 order had less to do with what is being offered by Airbus and more to do with the reduced capacity requirements of EK? Seems to me that once EK committed to A380 and 77W/779 there isn't space in their fleet or at DXB for more aircraft and not the stated reasons as change of specification from Airbus being the main reason for cancellation.

Emirates was not pleased with the changes made to the A350-1000 (at least at first), but as Airbus did not change the A350-900, it does stand to reason that they swapped their entire A350 order for more A380s (and 777Xs) because that was where the "immediate need" was and they could wait for the smaller "regional" fleet.

bunumuring · Tue May 31, 2016 3:57 am

Hey guys,
For ages I have believed that Emirates would eventually turn its attention towards lower density (than 777/A380) and/or more 'regional' routes to fuel additional growth. I have always seen this as a potential weakness against QR and EY who were better poised to take advantage of such routes with their A32Xs and 787s/A33Xs/A35Xs. Iran especially seemed like a strong medium term growth opportunity for the ME3.
A new version of the 787/A350 specifically tailored for EK may be possible. Boeing did the 747-400ER largely for QF, and have done the 737-700ER for All Nippon plus the 737-700C for Air Algerie and big business. A fifty frame launch order for a modified version of either jet may be enough to encourage A&B to invest in R&D at least. I wonder if the 'other two' would be interested as well?
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Motorhussy · Tue May 31, 2016 4:15 am

Quoting bunumuring (Reply 37):

I'm still not clear as to what these changes are that EK may be requiring; can anyone enlighten me? What's their brief to Boeing and Airbus for each of their regional widebody offerings?

mjoelnir · Tue May 31, 2016 9:44 am

It seems that the only change to the 787-10 Emirates was talking about, was increased engine power. I do not know how much reserve the GEnx-1B or Trent 1000 have. If this would need a completely new engine version, I would expect it not been done for 50 frames.

An increased MTOW 787-10 would hit several snags. The 787-10 is a minimum change stretch of the 787-9. Same wing, same MLG, same engine and a slight, 2t, increase in MTOW and I think that hits the limits.

A 787-10ER would be a new bird with substantial changes, perhaps better for EK, but perhaps worse for other customers.
There would be needed work on the wing, MLG and a bigger engine of the size of the Trent XWB84. To build this bird to get the 50 frame order of Emirates only, would be IMO not a good choice for Boeing.

I think the main reason that we do not see a decision between the two frames on offer, the A350-900 and the 787-10, is, that Emirates has time, as they do not need this frames right away.

Motorhussy · Tue May 31, 2016 12:09 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 39):

So currently the A359 suits as is but the current 78X could carry marginally more people but not during the heat of the UAE summer or middle of the day.

And of course EK can use this order further down the line as leverage for their desired A380neo.

tortugamon · Tue May 31, 2016 6:22 pm

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 40):
So currently the A359 suits as is but the current 78X could carry marginally more people but not during the heat of the UAE summer or middle of the day.

I don't see them fitting either aircraft with crew rests as this is a regional aircraft order. Which limits operating time to less than 10 hours. I don't see any meaningful temperature extremes at DXB that would prevent a full passenger load out to 10 hours.

At the extremes it could be a cargo issue but even that would be small. The engine maintenance perspective could be meaningful. But it is certainly not about carrying the passengers.

tortugamon

KarelXWB · Tue May 31, 2016 10:18 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 38):
It seems that the only change to the 787-10 Emirates was talking about, was increased engine power.

Emirates asked for an 84,000 lbf engine.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business...g-emirates-has-issues-with-787-10/

Quote:
“That makes life difficult” for the 787-10, whose engines generate about 76,000 pounds of thrust. Clark said his team estimates that up to 84,000 pounds would be needed to assure take-off with full loads all year round.

“On the A350-900, we don’t get those kind of operating conditions restrictions,” he added.

Clark readily concedes that few other airlines, if any, have such a requirement and that neither Boeing nor the 787-10 engine-makers are going to essentially develop a new engine just for Emirates. “They’ll probably say, Look, that’s it,” he said, calling that a “perfectly reasonable stand.”

Boeing responded "no". Perhaps both parties will find a tradeoff somewhere.

jacobin777 · Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:44 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 41):
Emirates asked for an 84,000 lbf engine.

The article states "up to" an 84,000 lbf engine.

Motorhussy · Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:27 am

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 42):
The article states "up to" an 84,000 lbf engine.

Yes, so what it means is, there will be times during the course of the year when 84,000 lb's of thrust is required from the 78X's engines when operating at full capacity out of Dubai's airports.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 41):
Emirates asked for an 84,000 lbf engine.

...is taking the correct inference from Clark's comment. Another is that it doesn't currently compete on an equal footing with the A359.

[Edited 2016-06-01 04:35:15]

jacobin777 · Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:05 pm

Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 43):
Yes, so what it means is, there will be times during the course of the year when 84,000 lb's of thrust is required from the 78X's engines when operating at full capacity out of Dubai's airports.

One can say there will be times during the course of the year when they won't need that thrust requirement.

sunrisevalley · Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:56 pm

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 42):
The article states "up to" an 84,000 lbf engine.

I believe 80000 lbf. engines are already in development so the gap is being closed. EK are noted for having performance wish lists at the extreme edge of the envelope but having to settle for something a little less.

justloveplanes · Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:14 pm

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 25):
The -ER version adds weight that needs power to get it into the air. I think Boeing can give them ~ a 12-hour airplane at about 137t DOW which will fly ~ 6000nm ESAD in any direction from DXB. I think the issue if there is one is all to do with how many engine cycles will be warranted at a specific takeoff temperature, say 50C.

The newer high temperature CMC parts from the LEAP and GE-9X could (likely IMHO) be scaled into the GEnx by then, so the performance gap might be filled with no sacrifice in cycles. The test bed for the GE-9X CMC parts is a GEnx.

atcsundevil · Wed Jun 08, 2016 5:57 am

As posted by Rotating14, EK appear to be nearing a decision.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-on-a350787-order-decision-426069/

Quote:
The evaluation includes the 787-9 along with the larger but shorter-range 787-10, which Clark describes as "a good 10h aircraft". The focus of the Airbus evaluation is on the A350-900 rather than the larger -1000 or proposed "-2000" stretch, which Clark refers to as the "A350-1000-ish" as its design specification is still "a moveable feast".

parapente · Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:42 am

Cat and mouse.He. I'll retake the 350 if he gets a guarantee on the 380neo.Which is fine as they were going to do it anyway.imho.

rotating14 · Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:26 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 48):
Cat and mouse.He. I'll retake the 350 if he gets a guarantee on the 380neo.Which is fine as they were going to do it anyway.imho.

He's not getting that guarantee. Airbus is not going to follow through with the A380 NEO until after 2025, maybe. See below.

http://www.bidnessetc.com/68784-airb...0neo-emirates-doesnt-care-anymore/

http://m.thenational.ae/business/avi...s-gives-up-on-upgraded-airbus-a380

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net