SKY1 From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 843 posts, RR: 4 Posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18399 times:
It's pretty curious many people strongly believe that a hypothetical 787-10 is actually a fact
But having into accout that:
1.- There's nothing official yet
2.- Boeing being reluctant to lauch it despite it is on the drawing board
3.- A hypothetical 787-10 could be similar by comparison with the Boeing's newest project 777-8X
What is the real likelihood of an official 787-10 lauch, then?
And being the 787-3 designed specifically for the Japanese market and all 787-3 orders converted to the 787-8, but despite that, even for some medium haul routes like the intra-asian, the former 787-3 or a new very similar plane could be a successful 330/763/773A replacement, specially for those (such as SQ or CX) who currently have many 330's or 777's flying leg in less than 3,000nm. More than 40 787-3 initially were ordered and being wingspan 7.6 m (25 feet) shorter doing it easier for airports with restricted gate spacing a re-lauch, new offer from Boeing could be well-accepted, specially in Asia.
2.- Boeing being reluctant to lauch it despite it is on the drawing board
3.- A hypothetical 787-10 could be similar by comparison with the Boeing's newest project 777-8X
What is the real likelihood of an official 787-10 lauch, then?
Ok so despite your obvious hostile tone....
Boeing execs have said and been on the record as saying that they plan on going to the Board at the end of this year to get authorization to launch and take orders. They're not reluectant to launch it, they still have to get the business case together and iron out issues present it to the board and then they could launch it. They also have to get the 787-9 engineered and drawing out for manufacturing as the 787-10 is a straight stretch of the 787-9. They can't start work on the -10 when they haven't finished work on the -9.
The 777-8X is going to be larger than the 787-10, they're not similar.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18292 times:
Maybe a 787-7 could be made, a tad smaller than the -8, smaller wing, lighter overall, max range about 4500nm.
The 787-10 will be done I am sure of it, it will replace the 777-200 perfectly at a lower fuel burn. The 777-8X will grow to 350 seats, to combat the A350-1000, that vacates a space that the A330-300 and 772 has now.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2557 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18225 times:
Paraphrasing Boeing execs -- "It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."
The issue with the 787-3 is that it was much smaller than most airlines want, and was too specifically targeted to quite short range ops. A 787-10 with 5000nm (or maybe even up the 6,000nm -- the figure seems to move around depending on who you talk to) will be useful for flights across the Atlantic, from Europe to Africa, between the Americas and perhaps even some shorter Asia-Europe sectors (ie up to 10 hours).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18122 times:
As NYC777 noted, the 787-10 has been on Boeing's mind for years. However, as the 787-8 and - especially - the 787-9 have grown in terms of their various weights, that has impacted the 787-10.
It is believed that the undercarriage for the 787 is good for a bit over 250t.
At launch as the 7E7-9, the MTOW was 227t, which would have given Boeing around 25t of growth for the 787-10. Customers pushed Boeing to raise that to around 245t by 2006 for better performance and Boeing then had to raise it even farther to counter weight creep and it is now 251t - right at the undercarriage limit. So now the 787-9 and 787-10 have the same MTOW. As the 787-10 is going to weigh more, that means it will be fuel-weight limited and therefore will not be able to fly as far as the 787-9.
Now that wasn't necessarily a terrible thing back in early 2006 as Airbus likely would have hit the same issues with the original A350-1000 (which itself was just a hypothetical stretch of the original A350 sized to match the 777-200). But in mid-2006 Airbus launched the A350XWB with the baseline plane (A350-900XWB) sized around the 777-200, as opposed to the double-stretch of the A350.
So the 787-10 can carry more passengers - and a lot more cargo (by volume) - then the A350-900, but it can't fly nearly as far. So instead of competing directly with the A350-900, the 787-10 now looks to be more a regional plane to replace the A330-300 and 777-300A. As such, Boeing now is considering brining the 777-8 to market to directly compete with the A350-900. The 777-8 and 787-10 are very close in capacity (the 787-10 is a meter longer in cabin length), but the 777-8 will have significantly more range.
So Boeing will likely pitch the 787-10, 777-8 and 777-9 as a package deal to airlines - the 787 for regional routes and the 777X for long-haul.
As to the 787-3, the aerodynamics were so crippled by the shorter wing that even with a projected 10t lower OEW, the 787-8 was more economical beyond 500nm. So there really was no reason to fly the 787-3 over the 787-8.
SKY1 From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 843 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18106 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1): so despite your obvious hostile tone....
?? Not hostile at all, just making a general question.
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1): The 777-8X is going to be larger than the 787-10, they're not similar.
The question is IF lauched, the 787-10 will be only a bit shorter than 777-8X. I'd like to see the MTOW figures, anyway.
787-9 is going to have 206 feet (63 meters) ...777-8X apparently will have 69,55 meters* ...so I don't think 787-10 if launched, is going to have more than 69 meters, but something between 63 (787-9 length) and 69'5 meters (777-8X)
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2312 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18054 times:
The 787-3 was officially cancelled a year or two ago. That was publicly announced by Boeing.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18025 times:
Eventually the 787-10 is needed. Many missions don't require those EK DXB-LAX at MTOW type of lift/range requirements, so optimizing the plane for EK (which both Boeing and Airbus have been more than happy doing) is really penalizing medium-haul operators.
The 787-10 would be a great replacement for 333 on intra-Asia and short TATL flights.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 17958 times:
Quoting SKY1 (Reply 5): The question is IF lauched, the 787-10 will be only a bit shorter than 777-8X. I'd like to see the MTOW figures, anyway.
It's not a matter of different size, it's a matter of different capability. Best guesses are that the 787-10 will have about 6700-6800 nm range, better than an A330-300 or 777-300A but far below today's long-haul planes. The 777-8X will have true 8000+ nm range comparable to that of the A350-900.
I still think the 777-8X is likely to fail because it will be too heavy for its capabilities. The 777-9X is the one I'm excited about.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7177 posts, RR: 45 Reply 10, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 17890 times:
Quoting SKY1 (Reply 5): The question is IF lauched, the 787-10 will be only a bit shorter than 777-8X. I'd like to see the MTOW figures, anyway.
Yes I wonder how the respective specs would differ. It seems the two planes might have a bit of overlap. Hopefully someone can provide a rough comparison of length, range, cargo capacity, seating, and engines.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14352 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17820 times:
Quoting SKY1 (Thread starter): And being the 787-3 designed specifically for the Japanese market and all 787-3 orders converted to the 787-8, but despite that, even for some medium haul routes like the intra-asian, the former 787-3 or a new very similar plane could be a successful 330/763/773A replacement, specially for those (such as SQ or CX) who currently have many 330's or 777's flying leg in less than 3,000nm.
The 787-8 and -9 can do almost the same. The analysis showed that the -3 was only more efficient at something like under 300 NM.
Quoting qf002 (Reply 3): Paraphrasing Boeing execs -- "It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."
To be fair, that was several delays and a larger wing ago. Now there is no larger wing and the production line is fully booked with -8 and -9 orders. The former changes the analysis of a potential 787-10 since building it would mean either less capability or more development work and the latter means that there's no time pressure either way. Boeing won't be able to start cashing checks for the 787-10 any sooner whether they launch it now or a few years down the road.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17802 times:
Quoting SKY1 (Reply 9): But March 2006 ...is a long time ago and we go on with the same news, and right now with the 777X project, it can change many plans.
If I had to bet, I would bet a lot of money on the 787-10 being produced eventually. The business case is just too good. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet my lunch money on the 777-8X.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
SKY1 From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 843 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17709 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): So instead of competing directly with the A350-900, the 787-10 now looks to be more a regional plane to replace the A330-300 and 777-300A
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): So Boeing will likely pitch the 787-10, 777-8 and 777-9 as a package deal to airlines - the 787 for regional routes and the 777X for long-haul
Do you think the 787-10 will be launched for regional, routes shorter than 3,000 nm and as a 787-3 improved? Stitch are u thinking in the end the original role assigned by the former -3 will eventually be played for the 787-10 if launched??
CM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17599 times:
Quoting SKY1 (Reply 5): IF lauched, the 787-10 will be only a bit shorter than 777-8X.
Body length has no bearing on airplane capacity...
...747-8 is longer than A380 with around 100 fewer seats.
...757-300 is same length as 767-300 with around 60 fewer seats
...767-400 is just 8 feet shorter than a 777-200, but with nearly 100 fewer seats.
In a 2-class config, 787-10X will have 10%-15% fewer seats than the 777-8X, which is similar to the seating capacity difference between the 787-8 and 787-9.
davs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 357 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17457 times:
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1): Ok so despite your obvious hostile tone....
I would classify the initial post as more "overly skeptical" than "hostile," but that's just me.
Quoting SKY1 (Thread starter):
It's pretty curious many people strongly believe that a hypothetical 787-10 is actually a fact
But having into accout that:
1.- There's nothing official yet
2.- Boeing being reluctant to lauch it despite it is on the drawing board
Sure, there's nothing "official" yet, but when the writing's on the wall...
Quoting qf002 (Reply 3): Paraphrasing Boeing execs -- "It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."
...then IMO there's probably good reason to assume that it will happen eventually. Based on comments by Boeing's execs, I'd say that on a scale from myth (1) to fact (10), the 787-10 is probably around an 8.
Also, I wouldn't be so quick to classify the delay to announce as "reluctance." There are more ideal times to make such announcements, based on the situation of the market, etc. Also, Boeing probably wants to ensure the accuracy of the specs it will offer by doing as much research as possible before releasing to potential customers a new plane - and the performance promises that will come with it...they want to ensure that they don't prematurely promise more than the plane will eventually be able to deliver.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 17360 times:
The 789 is close now, it should be on the FAL in the next 6 months? Its not that big difference from the 788, better lighter parts I read, but mostly just a stretch of the 788? More powerful engines and fuselage strengthening.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5045 posts, RR: 29 Reply 17, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 17307 times:
Since the 787-10 will use most of the important bits from the 787-9, and there's already a huge backlog for the 787 in general, there's no rush to officially offer the -10 right now.
With the current plan of keeping the MTOW of the -10 the same as the -9, and trading range for payload, most of the engineering required to create the -10 will be accomplished by the -9.
In short, I think it's much to early to start to worry about the fate of the -10.
I agree. A 787-10 isn't going to be rushed out any time soon. I'm hoping for a 2020ish timeframe for first deliveries. There will be a lot of regional 77E's and earlier A333's up for replacement by then.
rotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 377 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16732 times:
Do you think a 787-10 could do JFK - GRU with a fair load?
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16715 times:
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 19): Do you think a 787-10 could do JFK - GRU with a fair load?
It should be able to do JFK-GRU at or close to MZFW.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
ADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1179 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16713 times:
The USA airlines used to use wide bodies domestically. If fuel prices climb maybe a 787-10 would be more economical on NYC-LA than a 757/737/A320. Or ORD to LAX, PDX, SEA, etc. Which 787 has the same number of seats as the old DC-10s?
They could also use a 787-5 with 4000 mi range - if Boeing could come up with an advantage (lower operating costs, lower purchase price, etc). I don't think that will happen. The 787-3 was too crippled for USA use, or really anywhere outside Japan.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26722 posts, RR: 83 Reply 22, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 16631 times:
Quoting SKY1 (Reply 13): Do you think the 787-10 will be launched for regional, routes shorter than 3,000 nm and as a 787-3 improved? Stitch are u thinking in the end the original role assigned by the former -3 will eventually be played for the 787-10 if launched??
It might very well be used on missions that short, but it can be used on longer missions, as well. Just not the longest missions.
MZFW for the 787-9 is 181t, which is 20t higher than the 787-8, allowing 70t of TOW for fuel. If Boeing raised the 787-10's MZFW by the same amount - to 201t - that would allow 50t of fuel to be loaded. I expect the actual MZFW will be less - probably closer to 190t - which would allow 60t of fuel to be loaded - 86% of the fuel of the 787-9.
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3954 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15939 times:
In my view the 787-10 is like shooting fish in a barrel. Based on an assumption that there will be little or no increase over the 789 in MTOW, that the OEW will be about 136t, that the MZFW is unchanged from the 789 and a 3-class 323 passenger load, PIANO X indicates that range with max passenger load would be about 6500nm. Fuel load would be ~ 84t some 82% of capacity. With a 46t payload it would do a 5000nm / 10h 50m sector. It would haul ~40t on any of the Asian coast to Mid-Europe city pairs that are ~12hr westbound flying time.
My view is that at typical belly cargo density it will be weight limited. Another 10t of ZFW would not go amiss to address this shortfall.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4976 posts, RR: 14 Reply 24, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 15845 times:
OK lets say that the 7810 is launched....who would operate it?
DL? UA? EK? BA? JL? NH? AA? Who else? AC? AF? Just thinking here.
頑張ろう日本!
25 QANTAS747-438: Too bad. I can seriously envision WN getting a "low" range 787 for long-haul international flights in 10 years. The 787-3 looked perfect for them. WN
26 sunrisevalley: It should be attractive to Asian and TALT carriers.As an example 46t on a 9h 25m sector such as CDG-CLT or SYD-HKG It could replace many 77E's that a
27 SKY1: I'm fully agree! I read about one year ago that some low-cost carriers like WN and specially budget airlines from the Asia-Pacific region could be in
28 Stitch: Even empty, a 787-3 couldn't fly 5000nm. The MTOW was too low to tank enough fuel. There is interest. It's just that availability was so far in the f
29 sweair: The 787-3 will be replaced by a NB that is bigger than its sisters in the NSA family. 50% of the OEW of the 787-3. It has to be somewhere between 739
30 danielgoz: I don't think it's going to happen! Boeing are better off making the 777-8X! They don't want more time to go to waste and more money down the drain!
31 sunrisevalley: I would suggest there is greater uncertainty of outcome and cost in the 777-8X than in the 787-10. They are virtually there with the latter.They pret
32 qf002: The 777-8X will be considerably larger, heavier and less efficient on short hops. Just look at the success of the A333. An A333 with better economics
33 SKY1: If that clear ...why not lauched yet? I agree with you there's a big market for regional ops. up to 3,000-3,200 nm on widebodies ...mostly the earlie
34 sunrisevalley: EK has about 35 A330 and 777's ( not 77W's) between 10 and 15-years old that must be up for replacement starting within a few years. EK have about 80
35 Stitch: Because you would have had to wait a decade to get one and what airline wants to tie up capital for that long? Boeing is showing some prudence by not
36 sweair: With all bad luck the 787 project has had, maybe the MTOW of the 789 will be a positive surprise? Say they could certify it for 260t... How long will
37 sunrisevalley: I think the MTOW is set at about 251t. A positive surprise would be an OEW at .49 or better of the MTOW.
38 qf002: The 787-8 has literally just entered service, and the 787-9 has got a long way to go. They've also had the 748 to develop, and are working on the 737
39 Rheinbote: According to Boeing first flight is scheduled for August/September 2013 and entry into service for 1Q or 2Q 2014. So certifcation is obviously planne
40 sweair: The 787-10 will be cheap, all other costs have been taken on the 788 and 789, I can clearly see why it would be a sound investment to make. And airlin
41 KC135TopBoom: Much shorter upper deck, but it does carry more cargo. NB vs. WB. Seven abreast seating (Y class) vs. nine abreast seating (Y class). Boeing could ma
42 PIEAvantiP180: The A330 is not long ranged to but LH seems to love it. In LH fleet the 787-10 would replace the A330 on trunk tatl and shorter Asia routes.
43 lightsaber: The issue with a new 783 is competition with the NEO and MAX (specifically, the A321NEO and 739MAX). Those will be far more ideal planes for BOS/JFK
44 Stitch: I heard somewhere that the wing was good for 290t and the undercarriage for ~255t.
45 SKY1: Depends what market you're talking about. 321NEO and 739MAX are more focused in some North Atlantic routes as a 757-200 good replacement, but I can't
46 qf002: lightsaber is talking about the 783, which would have lacked the range/capability to be an A333/773 replacement for most Asian airlines.[Edited 2012-
47 SKY1: For these regional routes top-range usually is 3,000 to 3,200 nm. Seldom 4,000 nm is needed on that regional routes. And about capability cargo issue
48 lightsaber: Agreed. But they'll go for pretty large gauge. I could see them more with the 787-10 than the 737-3. There are two ways to approach better mid-haul e
49 SKY1: 737-10? you mean 787-10, right? Ironically like you know pretty well neither 787-3, nor -10 are right now available, -3 was available until 2 years ag
50 qf002: And the 783 was only supposed to have a range in the 2,500-3,000nm bracket from memory. By the time you take into account the the fact that these are
51 lightsaber: Oops, typo. 787-10 is what I meant. Rumors are the 787-10 will be offered within 12 months. I was debating if there would be another 787-3, that I di
52 astuteman: With the MAX entering service late 2017 and the 777X slated for "end of decade" (I assume sometime during 2019 at the earliest), prioritising these o
54 thegeek: I thought the 748 did carry more revenue cargo than the A388 but only because pax bags take up so much room. There is no chance of this. It's a trend
55 JoeCanuck: News of the demise of the 330-300 is a bit premature. Airbus will indeed be selling a bunch of these, (and making bucket loads of money from them), u
56 sweair: It does carry more weight, volume is smaller, but the 777 owns the 380 on volume as well. The 748 is the better cargo+passenger option of the two VLA
57 sunrisevalley: What is the possibility that some of the carriers with significant numbers of 789's on order ( for example, AF,EY,QF,SQ and JAL ) may elect to transfe
58 zeke: The A380 has more cargo volume/containers, and considerably higher maximum structural payload capability than a 747-8i. The 787-9 and A350-900 also h
59 sweair: The A380 will use much more of its volume for passenger bags than the 748, if filled the A380 has very little space left for revenue cargo. That is th
60 Stitch: It will depend on how each plane is configured, but I did a rough calculation a couple of years back on LH's fleet and on a TATL-mission (where each
61 cmf: But wouldn't a 777 be better option for most of the passenger + cargo combinations?
62 sweair: Aspire, now orient insight had a good piece about 777vsA380vs748i for CX and revenue cargo. Those upper decks are a handicap. The 380 has the lower ca
63 Stitch: In terms of cargo volume, yes, as it has 44 LD3 positions (as will the A350-1000 and as should the 787-10X).
64 lightsaber: Good point. One in favor of the 787-10 vs. 777X. I pointed that out years ago that the A330 had years of good sales ahead. Before the 787 delays... L
65 sweair: Between the 787-3 and a NB I vote for the 797-9
66 Rheinbote: Do the 290t apply to the current 787-8 wing or the 787-9 wing? The landing gear should be good beyond 255t judged by the truck geomtery & tire ch
67 Stitch: Honestly, I don't know. It's just a data point I picked up somewhere in the past. I'd guess it would be for the 787-9.
68 sunrisevalley: The wing span is identical for both at 60.1m. Does this make it the same wing for both? I assume so but don't know for sure.
69 sweair: The landing gear is made in France? Same supplier as A350? Maybe they could make it a bit stronger? As the 350 must demand a stronger gear?
70 Rheinbote: Depends on whether the 787-9 inherits the SOB fix from the 787-8 or gets a new SOB design.
71 sweair: The 789 will most certainly have a new SOB that the 788 will get later.
72 817Dreamliiner: If I remember correctly the 787-9 will indeed get a new SOB design.
73 DocLightning: Waaaay too much engineering work for the ~20 orders it might generate. The best thing to do is chop the 788 wingtips off and replace them with wingti
74 sweair: I think the 787-3 will be the 797-9.. Something like the size of MS-21-400 in boeing style.
75 thegeek: For sure, but there remains a question mark about the market for a plane which trades range for payload. You never know, in this case it could perfor
77 JoeCanuck: It'll be up to the customer airlines to decide. By the time the -9 is flying, (maybe before), Boeing can give potential customers a pretty good idea
78 thegeek: Yeah, but it's not completely comparable. It reached market 4 years earlier than the -200, and the -300 spent much of the A330's life from the -200 E
79 qf002: It comes down to how much range they sacrifice. A plane with 6,000nm range is hardly lacking in capability if it's useful from Asia to Europe and fro
80 parapente: Not if but when,that is agreed. What is the 'real' production rate of the 787? Not the one Boeing are 'hoping to' or 'aiming at' but the real rate.It
81 sweair: I think it has been 6800nm for a while, if not from Boeing some analyst has spread this number many times. Does to 789 and 788 have a belly tank? Coul
82 Stitch: 3.5 per month, with the trend to 5 per month now underway.
83 parapente: Re Post 82. Exactly - if we take the optimistic position (trending) and an order book of circe 860 planes (as I recall) one has 14 years of manufactur
84 sweair: Boeing mulls 7+7 a month in the future, having a huge backlog is nice but it can also be a problem and add cost. If the tanker deal hadn't been made m
85 Stitch: Both planes have the same fuel tank system, which does include a center tank. The new 767 FAL was created specifically to allow the 787 Surge Line (w
86 cmf: I expect so too. I fully understand why the built it. I do not understand why they plan(ed) to shut it down while there is still high demand.
87 WarpSpeed: Another alternative to meet long-term demand is to increase production at the N. Charleston plant beyond the current plan. The surge line makes treme
88 sweair: They talked about doing 7 in Charleston and 7 at Everett, it was in some article from SC when they rolled the first 787 out of there. You will be maki
89 SKY1: Inside that Reuters' article there is this statement: IF that's fully true, the -10 version could be lauched within this year. Boeing will take any 7
90 thegeek: Even at that rate, it will still take 5.1 years to deliver into the current backlog. Still, it sounds like it's about the prudent rate, otherwise you
91 cmf: I'm sorry but I do not think the surge line makes much sense in the short time. It is a lot of effort and money, too much for a short time.
92 zeke: This is not true in the real world. Normal average load factor is around 75%, this is an IATA industry average. Looking at the 747-8 and A380-800, th
94 SKY1: According some press it's a fact Boeing if officially lauched, they will lauch the 787-10 before any decision about the 777X project. It makes a lot
95 parapente: Love Airliners.net Start with this.Reality and potental projection. Quoting parapente (Reply 80): What is the 'real' production rate of the 787? 3.5 p
96 Burkhard: I think it has more to do with the fact that the A333 range could be increased to suit many demands, AND the higher fuel prices favor aircraft that a
97 dynamicsguy: Or start with an incorrect premise and run with it: The plan is to get to 5/month at Everett by the end of the year which is not overly optimistic. Y
98 thegeek: I can accept that aspect, but the aspect which I had trouble with was a decision being made to offer the -10 this year. It seems somewhat foolhardy.
99 sweair: Current rate is 3½, going to 5 by years end, 10 is/was the goal by the end of 2014. 14 is some new goal that the management has been thinking about.
100 SKY1: According to some press and media, Boeing will take any decision about the 777X late this year or early 2013, therefore if you accept that the -10 wi
101 sunrisevalley: In what way? There could be significant customers with all sorts of reasons who need Boeing to commit to it or not within the next nine months to a y
102 Stitch: The 787-9 should be fully-designed by now as they are planning to start production by year's end. If the 787-10 is nothing more than a 5-6m stretch o
103 PHX787: Can someone compare this to the rate of production to the 777 (any model?)
104 sunrisevalley: Presently the 777 line is running at 7 per month with plans for 8.3 per month in early 2013.
105 thegeek: What if the production ramp up doesn't go smoothly? They'll be opening themselves up to further penalties and damage to their reputation. Even if it
106 parapente: Plans,forecasts,intensions-reality. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...e-line-activation-until-4q-372886/ Furthermore the - 9 is a very different
107 sweair: I think the 788 above a certain block point is far from being way way overweight, Blow LN20 maybe you could say that. Engines are closing in, PIP2 and
108 sunrisevalley: sure it is, they are not getting all the payload they expected, fuel burn because of the over weight is higher than anticipated but over all they are
109 parapente: Reply 107, posted Wed Jun 13 2012 10:26:21 your local time (3 hours 27 minutes 34 secs ago) and read 152 times: I think the 788 above a certain block
110 sweair: I think the Trent C package will be better than spec, making the above LN90 frames for ANA and other RR customers very pleased. It will have thrust en
111 frigatebird: I can think of at least one A.net member who will be in full agreement with you (his username starts with P and ends with M) But seriously, I'm impre
112 dynamicsguy: Really? The only weight increase which I believe could be attributed in any way to what the customer wanted was the LN 20 blockpoint, but that was an
113 JerseyFlyer: Surely an entirely fair advantage?
114 sweair: Ok, I was wrong again, I think I lost all interest in the 787 threads.
115 VC10DC10: Sorry to be thick, but what does the acronym "SOB" stand for? In this context?
116 rwessel: "Side-of-Body", where the wing joins the fuselage - As you may recall Boeing had an issue with that structure with the 788.
117 sunrisevalley: I believe the reference is to Side of Body connection.
Sponsor Message: 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 843 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5160 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2557 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7177 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5045 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4976 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
