OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2493 posts, RR: 4 Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 22372 times:
Our firend and skillful journalist/blogger - Flightblogger has written an article, where he suggest that the 787-9 is the new 777-200ER. He uses the argument that ANA will use the high density domestic routes with 400 passengers, almost as many as they have with the current 777-200.
The numbers underline Flightbloggers argument, but Boeing officially sees a place for both side by side. Now if/when Boeing redo the 777, will they increase the length on the -200 and -300? In line of a 250 and 350? Or will they just offer the 777 as a one size airplane?
Other points Flightblogger comes up with is that the 787-9 may be able to attack both the A358 and A359. Your thoughts?
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11529 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 22334 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): Flightblogger has written an article, where he suggest that the 787-9 is the new 777-200ER.
For quite a few airlines that will probably be the case. For flights up to and including many transatlantic (and probably a lot more than that) the 787-9 will be more efficient than the 777-200ER. Other airlines that need either a bit more capacity, or probably more importantly, more payload range capability, the A350-900 will probably be a better choice.
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): . Now if/when Boeing redo the 777, will they increase the length on the -200 and -300?
If it were me, I'd just drop the -200 length, with the possible exception of the -200LR but I'd probably drop even that. (The rationale being that improvements to the -300ER would give that enough range to render the 77L unnecessary) I'd focus the 777NG around a -300ER length model and a stretch beyond that, but truthfully, I don't think that Boeing can or needs to do a 777NG before the latter part of this decade.
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): but Boeing officially sees a place for both side by side.
Privately I imagine the picture is different. Pretty much everyone who wants a 77E has one. But that doesn't mean that the line is in trouble since the 77L, and particularly 77W and 77F will be in production for years to come. However, I would fast track a 787-10 with an extended (though not necessarily heavily redesigned) wing and max range in the 7000 NM range to fight the A350-1000 from below while the 77W fights it from above.
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): Other points Flightblogger comes up with is that the 787-9 may be able to attack both the A358 and A359.
That's probably true, and I'm on record saying that I think that the 787-9 will be the winner of the 787 line. The A358 seems a bit odd to me, but they'll get sales to make it worthwhile.
[Edited 2010-09-30 23:41:05]
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1493 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 22317 times:
787-9 as a successor to the 777-200ER? Possible, however, only in two-class configuration. If a premium carrier needs "true" 300-seater with first class up front, then something larger will be needed. Enter the 777-8*
Oh, and one more thing, Mr. Boeing: you can take your 17' seat and shove it. Nothing will beat the comfort of 18' seat. Though the majority of "customers" will disagree, nothing beats the comfort of a wider seat with equal legroom.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3977 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 22285 times:
Look into the order books already now, with the 789 still some sort of vaporware - the 777-ER is mostly dead already now. It is far too heavy and expensive between the 789, A359 and A330s. The 777 line only has the 772LR and the 773ER as really best in their class aircraft.
The 789 will - for many airlines - be an alternative to the A358 which has longer range ( and attacks the 772LR ) and the slightly larger same range A359 - come back in 10 years and we can discuss which one performed better. I wouldn't wonder if the 788 would get a niche aircraft, similar to the A358, and B789 and A359 would both be produced and delivered with about 10 per month by then. As they look on paper, they are many applications where the 789 is better, and as many other ones which favor the A359. Big question is, how will a real 789 and A359 performed compared to their current paper model.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11529 posts, RR: 27 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 22214 times:
Maybe in a few cases, but the 777 is larger. And I suspect that a lot of airlines would rather use a 77W unless their routes are so long that they must use the 77L. The A350-900R will be a more formidable competitor to the 77L, but it seems to me that it will render the A350-800 more or less obsolete, having more capacity and more range.
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 3): I wouldn't wonder if the 788 would get a niche aircraft, similar to the A358, and B789 and A359 would both be produced and delivered with about 10 per month by then.
That probably isn't likely unless the 787-10 becomes a reality with a larger and possibly redesigned wing. I think that the market segment above the payload range of the A350-900 (or maybe even 787-9) just isn't big enough to justify the development costs alone. Even the 777-200LR was a low cost hanger on to the 777-300ER program.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1870 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 22177 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1): If it were me, I'd just drop the -200 length, with the possible exception of the -200LR but I'd probably drop even that.
IMO the 789 is a good 772ER successor. It is Boeings closest answer for 772ER replacements. Boeing will not bring a better 772ER successor. It is however not the absolutely closest 772ER successor. That would be the A359.
New versions of the 777 that aim to defend the territory of the 777 would need to be located at the larger end (77W or even larger). As 300 seater 777's already stopped to be relevant on the market...
The 787 graph is from 2005, the optimistic period.
Bottom line is the 777-200ER does well on the pacific. Conditions from Asia are not ideal. 9 Abreast cabin width counts specially on the longer Asian flights. The number of LD3 positions isn't that important here, payload restricts operations, not volume.
ANA swap 787-8 for 787-9s. And replaces domestic 777-200s with them, not 777-200ERs. Many airlines swapped or will swap -8s for -9s. They think it will be more efficient and mature.
Ronaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 21975 times:
If Boeing officially places the 789 as the 772/772ER successor, I think the 787-10 and -11 become redundant. The 77L remains as a aircraft for ultra long missions and the 77W certainly remains as well. Both 777s will be heavily updated, but without further stretch of the 77W, so the 747-8i finally remains on sale as well.
Thorben From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 21868 times:
Quote: While the 777-200ER airframe is 209ft 1in (63.73m) long, compared to 206ft 1in (62.82m) for the 787-9, passenger cabins are virtually identical with only 23in (59cm) difference in length. While its not a perfect comparison with requirements for lavs and galleys, as well as space around exits, a cross-section that provides nine-abreast seating on both aircraft can provide similar layouts with a 3.2in narrower aisle and 1.3in narrower seat on the -9.
Boeing says that the majority of 787 customers have selected nine-abreast seating in economy, allowing them to go to a near-777-style configuration.
I've been knowing this for years. All the talk about a 787-10 as the 772ER replacement is just wrong, because the 789 already has that size.
There's nothing wrong with that, because the 772ER is a model that has seen its sales anyway. Those who need it have it, and very few others would buy it anyway.
koruman From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2605 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 21821 times:
On the Air NZ thread we have discussed for many months that the 789 is a 77E clone, which probably won't make any new routes viable.
The real game changer is the 788, because while economics per passenger are slightly poorer it has the key difference that it can make money with an A320-sized load of 160 economy supplemented by 20 lie-flat business and 20 premium economy.
The 77W has great economics, but only for 747-volume routes. V Australia has proved the folly of buying the 77W: its operations would be more economical than a 77E/L but only if the market was big enough for a 330 seater instead of a 250 seater. It wasn't, and so the extra 80 seats had to be hugely discounted.
Similarly, the 789 is only really suitable on routes already operated by 77E aircraft.
It is the 788 and 77L which make different missions viable.
epa001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 2919 posts, RR: 16 Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 21670 times:
Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter): Other points Flightblogger comes up with is that the 787-9 may be able to attack both the A358 and A359. Your thoughts?
In my opinion the B787-9 can certainly "attack" the A358 and A359. The airliners will decide in the end which specific qualities of each of these fine new airliners will suit them best. The A358 might have too much range and might be a little bit too small for some airliners. But on the other hand, if the customers feel they can utilize the larger capacity of the A359, then I guess that will be the first choice for them. If not, the B787-9 will be a very strong offering from Boeing.
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1208 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 21605 times:
The new A350/9 is aimed directly at the 777-200er.It is the most optimised of the 350 family.If it cannot beat the "old" 772 then Airbus might as well move to making washing machines! Luckily the sales tell a different story - they can and they do.
Boeing have stated that they are working on a range of development options for the 777.The 300er is absolutly the king of the sky at present.No doubt they wish to keep it that way - with the "10" coming along. This they will surely do.
As for the 200 model? Well at present only Rolls are in a position to offer a new engine.Not great. Clearly if Boeing do narrow the wall linings so that 10 abreast at 17.5 " is possible it would allow for 2 "new" aircraft. A high density 300 (that would totally kill the 748i (however how do you kill something thats already dead?).But it would also allow the 200 to operate just above the 359 and just below the 3510.(again with the right engines).Now there may be a market there?
eaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 21593 times:
This brings up an important question. The 787-8 is a bit smaller than the A350-800 (225 vs. 270 passengers). The A358 and 789 are about the same size capacity wise but still smaller than the B777-200 (270 vs. 280 vs. 300). However the A359 is a bit bigger than the B772 (315 vs. 305). And then there is the A350-1000 with 350 seats. So it seems that the A350 is better suited to replace the 772 and 773 and that the A350 and B787 are only competing in a limited sense. This brings me to my question: Is Boeing really able to compete with the A350 with the B777 series. I mean the A350 is a generation ahead of the 777. The B787-8 and -9 don't really seem to replace the B777 but rather the B767. However when you look at the fleets of airlines outside of the US a lot of them seem to want the 772 to be their smallest plane for long haul and therefore logically the A350 would be their best replacement.
AirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 1713 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 21548 times:
This assumes you replace a 9Y 77E with a 9Y 789, with passengers accepting the narrower seats. However, if you already operate 10Y in your 77E, then a 9Y 789 will no way be an acceptable replacement.
Fleet consistency is important too. SQ are installing 19 inch seats on their A380s and 77Ws, so they're hardly likely to go 9Y on a 787, thus the A350 is a better bet to replace their 77Es.
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 21386 times:
I think the 787-8 has a niche of its own in the 250 seat two class segment. Apart from the A332 there is little competition. IMO the A350-800 will excell in a different niche, it's heavier then the -9 but able to do 270 seats with a comfortable 9 abreast for very long flights with a lot of cargo. Lift should be impressive. E.g Asia- Europe and Asia- USA mostly unrestricted.
If Airbus/GE/RR would do a A330 NEO superior economics could be realized for medium haul flights, but that's probably irrealistic in a period were skilled engineering resources seem the limiting factor. Although somehow those naive airlines won't stop ordering it.. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/4898412/
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 21199 times:
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16): What advantage would an A330Neo have against an A359 that is just downgraded to 230to MTOW in software?
Lower OEW, lighter engines, lower fuel consumtion, lower capasity, a freighter variant, a tanker variant, lower purchase costs, early delivery, no composites fuselage and assosiated MRO, an existing worldwide MRO supply chain (components), fleet /cockpit commonality with 1000 A330s, GE engines, thousands of a330 rated pilots, many of the reasons airlines buy A330s today with A350 and 787 available.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23554 posts, RR: 80 Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 20862 times:
I believe the 787-9 has grown to replace the 777-200ER, seating 280 in a Boeing three-class, 9-abreast configuration compared to the 301 of the 777-200ER.
The 787 graph is from 2005, the optimistic period.
But with the A350-900 looking to have similar design range to the 787-9, does that mean the A350-900 will also fall short of the 777-200ER with a large payload?
We know the 787-9 is fuel volume limited at design range, as Boeing reduced the tankage from 139,000 liters to 126,500 liters (same as the 787-8). The A350-900 will tank 139,000 liters, so assuming it has enough MTOW at design range to fill the tanks, it will have about 10% more fuel so it should be able to fly a few hundred nautical miles more than the 787-9, but I do not believe it could bridge the "1000 mile gap" Widebodyphotog's chart would imply - assuming his chart is even relevant, now.
Also, Jon's numbers in the article show the 787-9 flying 400nm farther with similar passenger loads and a greater cargo load thanks to the significantly lower fuel burn.
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1941 posts, RR: 57 Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 19970 times:
This payload/range chart says everything you need to know:
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3740 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 19698 times:
You are reading your 787-9 graph very strangely indeed. It looks like, at a 50 t payload, your graph shows the 787-9 flying around 5400-5500 nm or so. Given that it's a slightly smaller and lighter aircraft than a 772ER, that seems entirely reasonable.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 23554 posts, RR: 80 Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 19131 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 20): I will wait for EIS and final manuals before seeing the real 787 max paxload ranges and airfield performance.
So the chart you posted from years ago is "proof" the 787-9 will fly 1000nm less with the same payload as a 777-200ER, but you then want official data from Boeing before you accept anyone else's claims?
Quoting keesje (Reply 20): The variation among the first 50 787-9 will be considerable and the 787-9 got some major mods late in the process (e.g. smaller wings).
Why would it be variable? The design is finalized so they will all be built to the same spec, sans natural tranche updates common to any airliner family.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11529 posts, RR: 27 Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 18785 times:
Quoting Thorben (Reply 8): All the talk about a 787-10 as the 772ER replacement is just wrong, because the 789 already has that size
That changed when airlines started going to nine wide.
Quoting eaa3 (Reply 13): Is Boeing really able to compete with the A350 with the B777 series.
Certainly the -1000. As far as the rest of the market, I think it is best served with 787s.
Quoting keesje (Reply 15): IMO the A350-800 will excell in a different niche, it's heavier then the -9 but able to do 270 seats with a comfortable 9 abreast for very long flights with a lot of cargo.
Except that the -900R can carry even more even further.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 22): Why would it be variable? The design is finalized so they will all be built to the same spec, sans natural tranche updates common to any airliner family.
This is uncharacteristically optimistic of me, but I think that the 787-9 will be much smoother than the -8.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 8592 posts, RR: 96 Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 18732 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 19): This payload/range chart says everything you need to know:
It would if it had the A350 variants on it...
What it doesn't do is compare cabin size of course, but then I also know you'll have something up your sleeve on that score too
Rgds
25 Stitch: Based on the data I have found, the 787-9's cabin is 48.4 meters in length vs. 52m for the A350-900. So that should be worth three rows of Premium Ec
26 keesje: Yes and the 777-300ER even further, thats besides the point. I put a disclaimer under the graph that its 5 yrs old from the optimistic period I plott
27 WingedMigrator: Of course The points in the plot are chosen on each aircraft's payload-range curve such that payload = 1 pax / m2 of cabin floor area. Therefore, the
28 CFBFrame: The -9 will leverage the knowledge of the -8 so performance difference on the -9 program will not be comparable to the first -8 produced. If I rememb
29 keesje: it sold well also before the delays started. The -8i isn't the hottest deal in town. Boeing set the discounts accordingly. Crossed my mind too. It se
30 tdscanuck: I have no idea how to reconcile that with your other statement: Either you know the payload/range performance or you don't...please pick one. How doe
31 Stitch: Are you confusing the 787-8 with the 787-9? Boeing has also stated all customer 787s (LN007 onwards) will meet contractural payload and range guarant
32 BMI727: Actually not. The A350-900R will have about 1500NM more nominal range than the 77W. And it is not beside the point, because the -900R showing up 1-2
33 Stitch: I still firmly believe we will never see an A350-900R and I have my doubts on seeing an A350-900F anytime soon (like in the next decade, minimum).
34 msp747: Boeing doesn't pick the seat size, the airlines do. When the 787 was first being designed, it was only supposed to be 8 across. But the airlines all
35 astuteman: You sort of answer your own question in that sentence IMO. An A350-900R will be considerably more expensive to operate than an A350-800. By a double-
36 BMI727: On a CASM basis though? Use a plane that's too small, and the CASM is just too high. Too big and you can't fill the plane. In my estimation, the deve
37 ElbowRoom: ...yes, and Boeing has put them in a position where they have to choose a rather narrow 9 abreast (but not as narrow as 10 abreast 77W) or a very gen
38 Stitch: But in terms of seat cushion and seat back width, that shrinks to 0.3 inches (17.5 for the A350 vs. 17.2 for the 787). So the A350 offers a bit more
39 EPA001: Probably so. But it can still be a noticeable difference. When I came off an SQ B777 (9 abreast) to continue my trip on a B744 (10 abreast, also from
40 Stitch: Part of that might be due to the interior cabin design of the 777, as well. The plane just feels "roomier" to me thanks to the high, sculpted ceilings
41 EPA001: Yes and no. The B777 feels roomier, but I could notice more pressure from the arm rests and more contact with my neighbouring passenger in the B744.
42 CFBFrame: Interesting point about the arm rest, I find it hard to ever get comfortable with the arm rest sharing protocol in these narrow confines. Airlines li
43 Viscount724: I disagree with that. The 747 is much better than a 10-abreast 777 in my experieince, regardless of useless gimmicks like "sculpted ceilings".
44 Stitch: Well the A350-900 is curently soaking up a good bit of the 777-200 and 777-200ER replacement market, along with the A340-300. It may be a case of the
45 EPA001: I totally agree with this. But first we will have to wait how good the A350-900 will be, and how much Airbus will change for the A350-1000 (which is
46 Stitch: I also believe the A350 family will be solid performers, but the 77W did benefit from almost 10 years of additional development time and in-service da
47 BMI727: It might be, but it might have some appeal that keeps it from that status. Of course, the -900R would be a niche aircraft too, but probably a better
48 Max Q: This is not realistic, For one thing, people are certainly not getting smaller (at least in the US) to expect to wedge nine abreast into a narrower fu
49 JerseyFlyer: I think it will depend on what SQ decides to replace their A345s with. SQ are presently the only airline making any real success of the ULH concept a
50 BMI727: The thing with ULH planes is that they are not always used for ULH flights. While that is a major consideration, it is also worth noting that the 777
51 CFBFrame: If what you say is true, you're supporting the theory that the -800 is a niche a/c. After all the success of the A330 family and their efforts to pro
52 pnwtraveler: That is a typical bunch of innuendos that hints Jon is no longer credible. I find that offensive and unwarranted. You write that it is if Jon is the
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2493 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 11529 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1493 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 3977 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 1870 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 2605 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1208 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
