As Chicago-based plane-maker Boeing nears the authority to offer (ATO) milestone for its proposed 323-seat doubled-stretched 787-10X variant with a launch expected shortly thereafter, the ultra efficient medium-haul airplane is poised to propel the once-beleaguered 787 Dreamliner programme onto higher grounds and unlock the pent-up demand for the aircraft. However, a Boeing 787-10X launch may carry broader implications on another future widebody programme currently under evaluation, the revamped 777X that is due to enter into service by the end of this decade.
Importantly, the 787-10X which has a range of 6,700nm (nautical miles) when equipped with General Electric (GE) GEnx-1B engines or 6,750nm on versions powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 1000-TEN (Thrust Efficiency New Technology) engines, is likely to undermine the business case of its larger sibling, the proposed 353-seat 777-8X despite the latter’s longer range at around 8,000nm and its status of being planned as a 777-200ER replacement.
Aspire Aviation understands that Singapore Airlines (SIA) is currently negotiating with Boeing to be the launch customer of the 787-10X and a launch order could come as soon as this November, sources at Boeing and Singapore Airlines (SIA) confirmed.
The rationale behind being the 787-10X launch customer, the Singapore Airlines source says, is to replace the Airbus A330-300s in its fleet as they come off lease later this decade and enable intra-Asia growth to tap into the premium air travel demand of burgeoning economies in the Asia/Pacific region. The Star Alliance member currently operates 19 Airbus A330-300E (Enhanced) aircraft delivered in 2009 and 2010 on a 5-6 years lease term and has another 15 examples due to join its mainline fleet between 2013 and 2015 on a lease term of at least 6 years to be deployed on routes within Asia, to the Middle East and Australia.
Moreover, being the launch customer of the 787-10X enables the Singapore Airlines Group to secure early availability of the medium to long-haul airplane on attractive commercial terms for its namesake unit as well as its wholly-owned low-cost subsidiary Scoot Airlines, whose second-hand Boeing 777-200s need to be replaced later this decade and which the 787-10X’s 25% lower block fuel burn than an Airbus A330-300 could help Scoot Airlines gain a competitive edge with the lowest cash operating cost (COC) per seat amid intensifying low-cost, long-haul competition with Malaysia-based AirAsia X and Singapore-based Jetstar Asia of which Jetstar is expected to receive the first of its 15 787-8 Dreamliners on order by the summer of 2013.
Meanwhile, International Airlines Group (IAG) unit British Airways (BA) is currently in advanced discussions with the world’s second-largest aircraft manufacturer for an order of up to 60 Boeing 787-10X Dreamliners dedicated for the use of BA, Aspire Aviation‘s multiple sources at Boeing revealed. British Airways (BA) currently has 46 Boeing 777-200ER aircraft in its fleet, including 19 Rolls-Royce Trent 800-powered examples and 27 General Electric GE90-powered examples and will use the 787-10Xs to replace all of its 777-200ERs and the remainder to expand BA’s international network in Asia.
“It’s an ongoing process and I can’t say more than that at the moment,” British Airways chief executive Keith Williams was quoted by Bloomberg as saying.
Image Courtesy of Boeing
Mission creep
The imminent launch of the 787-10X is attributed as the major cause behind the lucklustre interest in the shrunk 353-seat 777-8X variant, a 69.55m (228.2 ft) long variant featuring a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 315 tonnes (694,456lbs) and a range of around 8,000nm, versus the 63.7m (209ft 1in) long 301-seat 777-200ER with a MTOW of 297.55t (656,000lbs) and a range of 7,725nm.
As several Middle Eastern carriers continue to pitch the notion that an airplane with more range equals to a better one, it is the trade-off between range and better fuel efficiency that has captured potential customers’ attentions and generated keen interest in the 787-10X in replacing the 777-200ER, A330-200s and -300s in one fell swoop, especially for those airlines which do not require the 8,000nm and 8,100nm ranges the 353-seat 777-8X and 314-seat A350-900s have, respectively.
Ironically, it is the very argument from its transatlantic arch-rival Airbus in pitching its increased maximum take-off weight A330 variants that helps explain the rationale behind airlines’ clear preference towards the 787-10X over the 777-8X aircraft.
In continuously improving its A330 aircraft family (“Airbus is right on A330 improvement strategy“, 10th Jul, 12), European plane-maker Airbus is offering a 240-tonne (529,109lbs) maximum take-off weight (MTOW) variant of the 295-seat A330-300 by mid-2015 from today’s 235 tonnes (518,086lbs), with an up to 400nm (nautical miles) longer range to 5,950nm (11,020km) and 5 tonnes more payload, along with a 240-tonne A330-200 whose range will be 270nm longer at 7,050nm (13,060km) with 253 passengers and 2.5 tonnes more payload upgraded from the 238t variant today.
Airbus chief operating officer (COO) customers John Leahy said at the time the A330-300 high gross weight (HGW) is able to cover 94% of all 777-200ER missions and enables airlines to deploy the aircraft on routes such as London-Tokyo, Frankfurt-Cape Town, Beijing-Melbourne, Beijing-San Francisco and Kuala Lumpur-Paris.
By the same token, the 323-seat 787-10X will have 14.29% more range than the 295-seat A330-300 yet carry considerably more payload – revenue cargo volume and passengers at 25% lower block fuel burn and 96.5% of the A330-200 missions at a fuel burn saving more than 25% when factoring the 70 additional passengers the 787-10X is able to accommodate in a typical 3-class configuration versus the A330-200.
In comparison, the 787-10X would be able to cover 85% and 84% of all the 353-seat 777-8X and 314-seat A350-900 missions, respectively, yet at a 10% and 5% lower cash operating cost (COC) than the A350-900 and -1000, respectively.
A noteworthy point is, the contentious issue of seat count resurfaces on comparing the different aircraft models in standard 3-class configuration, as Airbus’ latest airplane characteristics document lists the A350-900 accommodating 315 passengers in a standard 2-class configuration while it continues to advertise the A350-900 with flying 314 passengers in a standard 3-class configuration. Boeing, on the other hand, lists the A350-900 as being able to carry 299 passengers in a standard 3-class configuration. This matters as higher seat counts usually lead to lower block fuel burn per seat, thereby affecting the relative seat-mile and relative trip cost calculations.
In a presentation this May, Boeing Capital Corporation (BCC) managing director (MD) aircraft programmes and evaluations Brad Till puts the 787-10X as having an around 4% lower relative trip cost and an around 8% lower relative seat-mile cost than the 299-seat Airbus A350-900 on a 6,000nm mission.
Airbus has long contested the cost saving brought by the carbon-composite 787 Dreamliner, with its chief operating officer (COO) customers John Leahy claiming the cash operating cost (COC) per seat of a 300-seat A330-300 is 17% lower than the 777-200ER and is only 1% and 6% higher than the 787-8 and -9, respectively. The direct operating cost (DOC) of an A330-300, Airbus asserts, is 10% lower than both the 777-200ER and 787-8, whereas the 787-9′s DOC is 4% higher than that of an A330-300.
Besides the fact that Airbus’ calculation is based on a 1,800nm mission instead of the 6,000nm mission, which penalises the 777-200ER’s heavier airframe disproportionately as it has 12% more seating area than an A330-300 does, it is reasonable to predict that Airbus would assert the direct operating cost (DOC) of the 787-10X is also similarly higher than that of an A330-300.
|
A330-200 HGW |
A330-300 HGW | A350-900 | 777-200ER | 777-8X | 787-10X | |
|
3-class passenger no. |
253 | 295 | 299[1] | 301 | 353 | 323 |
|
Range (nm) |
7,050 | 5,950 | 8,100 | 7,725 | 8,000 | 6,700 (GE)6,750(RR) |
|
MTOW (kg) |
240,000 | 240,000 | 268,000 | 297,550 | 315,000 | 250,800 |
|
MLW (kg) |
182,000 | 187,000 | 205,000 | 213,180 | n/a | 201,800 |
|
MZFW (kg) |
170,000 | 175,000 | 192,000 | 200,480 (GE)199,580 (P&W, RR) | n/a | 192,800 |
|
Overall length (m) |
58.82 | 63.69 | 66.89 | 63.7 | 69.55 | 68.28 |
|
Wingspan (m) |
60.3 | 60.3 | 64.75 | 60.9 | 71.1 | 60.0 |
|
Diameter (m) |
5.64 | 5.64 | 5.96 | 6.19 | 6.19^ | 5.77 |
|
Cabin Width (m) |
5.28 | 5.28 | 5.61 | 5.86 | n/a | 5.49 |
|
Engines |
General Electric CF6-80E1Pratt & Whitney PW4000
Rolls-Royce Trent 700 |
General Electric CF6-80E1Pratt & Whitney PW4000
Rolls-Royce Trent 700 |
Rolls-Royce Trent XWB | Pratt & Whitney PW4090Rolls-Royce Trent 895
General Electric 90-94B |
General Electric GE9X | Rolls-Royce Trent 1000-TENGeneral Electric GEnx-1B PIP 2 |
| Thrust (lbs) | 70,000 (PW)71,100 (RR)
72,000 (GE) |
70,000 (PW)71,100 (RR)
72,000 (GE) |
84,000 | 90,000 (PW4090)93,400 (RR)
93,700 (GE) |
88,000 |
76,000 (RR) 75,000 (GE) |
[1] Boeing’s assessment is used due to discrepancy between Airbus’ latest airplane characteristics file & its website
Most importantly, the range of the 787-10X is ideal for airlines to operate on medium to long-haul routes that are currently operated by the Boeing 777-200ERs, Airbus A330-300s and -200s, beyond which airlines could rely on 787-9 whose range of 8,020nm with 280 passengers in a standard 3-class configuration or the smaller 787-8 to provide suitable lift. In doing so, not only could airlines optimise their operations with different 787 variants depending on sector length and demand, it also enables them to do so while enjoying commonality in maintenance, parts procurement, crew training which reduce costs significantly.
For British Airways (BA), its longest South American, North American, Southeast Asia and East Asia destinations are all within reach using the Boeing 787-10X. Its flights to Buenos Aires (EZE), Sao Paulo (GRU) and Rio de Janiero (GIG) are respectively 5,965nm, 5,065nm, 4,954nm long, whereas its transatlantic flights to Vancouver, Los Angeles and San Francisco are 4,080nm, 4,713nm and 4,637nm long, respectively, comfortably within the 6,700nm or 6,750nm range the 787-10X has.
The same holds true for BA’s Asia/Pacific flights, with its flights to Tokyo Narita, Hong Kong, Singapore and Bangkok flights are 5,161nm, 5,178nm, 5,845nm, 5,147nm long, respectively; and its South African flights to Johannesburg are at 4,855nm long.
Furthermore, as British Airways parent International Airlines Group (IAG) evaluates its options to restructure its loss-making Spanish unit Iberia’s long-haul fleet, IAG could well order 60 787-10Xs for British Airways to replace its 777-200ERs, which then frees up the 16 787-9s and 8 787-8s BA has on order for Iberia to tap into soaring air travel demand in South America by opening up new markets to these Spanish-speaking countries or cities.
For Singapore Airlines and its Scoot low-cost subsidiary, the Boeing 787-10X will provide an ideal replacement for the 7 Boeing 777-300s in the mainline fleet and Scoot Airlines’ high-density 400-seat Boeing 777-200s for intra-Asia flights and flights to Australia beyond the Gold Coast and Sydney the no-frills airline currently serves.
In the meantime, the 787-10X is arguably more cost efficient than the 299-seat Airbus A350-900 for sectors up to 6,750nm (nautical miles), as its airframe is significantly lighter compared to the A350-900 which, according to Boeing Capital Corporation’s Bill Tilden, has an oversized empennage with a 24% larger tail, bigger and heavier engine cores and 20% more wing area.
Interestingly, the 787-10X has a higher maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW) than the A350-900 with former’s 192.8 tonnes outweighing the -900′s 192 tonnes. As maximum zero fuel weight (MZFW) = OEW (operating empty weight) + payload and airline-specific operating empty weight (OEW) = MEW (manufacturer’s empty weight) + Standard Item (SI) + Operator Item (OI), a significantly lighter airframe will theoretically enable the 787-10X to carry much more payload than the A350-900 can on missions under 6,800nm unless carriers require the extra range the A350-900 has. Though one must caution the different ways Airbus and Boeing calculate their manufacturer’s empty weight (MEW) as Boeing includes seats and some operator items (OI) which Airbus does not, thus leading to a 2-4 tonne difference on an A320/737-sized aircraft and an even more pronounced difference on a widebody airplane.
All in all, with a 30% lower airframe maintenance cost and Boeing’s patented one-piece contoured barrel (OPCB) which eliminates 40,000-50,000 fasteners per barrel compared to an aluminium-built airplane, coupled with a higher payload over sectors under 6,800nm at an unrivalled fuel efficiency, it is not incomprehensible that airlines would favour the 787-10X to replace the 777-200ER instead of the 777-8X.
Engineering resources
Besides undermining the business case of the 777-8X, a 787-10X launch will have its impact on Boeing’s engineering resources. While the 787-10X is considered as a simple and straightforward stretch with most of the groundwork being laid by the 787-9 stretch, the timing of its development coincides that of the re-engined 737 MAX and foreshadows a ramp-up in development of the revamped 777-9X aircraft.
According to Aspire Aviation‘s multiple sources at Boeing, the 787-10X’s firm configuration is currently scheduled to take place in the second half of 2014, with a roll-out in the first half of 2017 followed by an entry into service (EIS) in 2018/19, whereas the 737 MAX has an entry into service in late 2017. This also coincides with the currently envisaged fourth-quarter 2017 roll-out and flight tests of the 777-9X, whose aggressive 9-month flight test programme will be complete by the end of the third-quarter in 2018 with an EIS in mid-2019 (“Boeing chooses largest wingspan for 777X“, 26th Jul, 12).
With the 787-10X generating keener interest with a more solid business case, which also applies to the 777-9X as evaluations of a carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) and metallic wing continues that has a 5% fuel efficiency at stake coupled with the preparations for a full-scale wing demonstrator taking place behind 40-25 and 40-26 buildings despite its authority to offer (ATO) is pushed back with interest in the -8X being lacklustre, Aspire Aviation proposes shelving the 777-8X variant which makes the most commercial sense for Boeing.
For instance, Wall Street Journal has reported Boeing officials including chief executive Jim McNerney and then Boeing Commercial Airplanes chief executive Jim Albaugh growing increasingly concerned at a composite-winged 777-9X, which will have a 21% lower block fuel burn per seat than the 777-300ER and a 16% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat.
Not only could shelving the 353-seat 777-8X variant lessen the pressure on engineering resources across 3 product lines at a time, it could also enable Boeing to preserve the strength of its balance sheet and concentrate its financial resources over aircraft programmes with better return over investment (ROI) such as the 323-seat 787-10X and the 407-seat 777-9X.
In doing so, Boeing could focus on bringing the 737 MAX to the marketplace sooner to further improve its availability, an increasingly important non-price factor in winning the hotly-contested re-engined narrowbody battle along with steep price discounts from both sides of the Atlantic. This is consistent with public comments made by Boeing officials in the past.
Then Boeing could move on to focus on bringing a long-range 777-8LX derivative in early 2020s once the first delivery of the 777-9X has been successfully accomplished in mid-2019 as this would prevent product overlaps between the -8X and 787-10X in addition to being a simple derivative with a 17,550km (9,480nm) range similar to the 777-200LR’s range of 9,395nm today. The 777-8LX will be powered by a 99,500lbs GE9X engines while burning 14%-16% less fuel than a 777-300ER and shares the same maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of the -9X at 344 tonnes (760,000lbs) and a common fuel tank capacity, a flightglobal report says, implying the -8LX will be a simple long-range shrink of the -9X requiring minimal investment and engineering resources.
This will ensure each member in Boeing’s future widebody strategy to have a niche of its own while minimising schedule and execution risks, costs and preserving engineering and financial resources to create the maximum shareholders value during the developmental processes of these aircraft which will further strengthen Boeing’s existing market leadership in the 300-400 seat segment.
Image Courtesy of Boeing
787 momentum builds
Finally, a 787-10X launch in 2012 is destined to push the 787 Dreamliner programme onto higher grounds as Chicago-based Boeing doubled 787 deliveries in the third-quarter to 12 from the second’s 6. As Qatar Airways’ first 787 is rumoured to be ready for delivery in November once its in-flight connectivity installation is complete in Victorville, California, China Southern Airlines’ first 787s and LOT Polish Airlines’ ones could also be delivered before year-end, its target of delivering 35-42 787s in 2012 looks increasingly achievable.
“The delivery of 12 787s in Q3 means that Boeing needs to deliver another 12 787s in Q4 to achieve the low end of its 35-40 aircraft full-year target. This looks reasonable to us given that Boeing has delivered 23 787s YTD and delivered twice the number of 787s in Q3 as it did in Q2,” analysts at Credit Suisse wrote in a note to clients on 15 October.
On the production front, the 787′s ambitious production ramp-up from 3.5 per month to 5 per month by the end of this year, before reaching a rate break of 7 per month in March/April 2013 and finally to 10 per month by the end of 2013 seems to be progressing well with few hiccups or unpleasant surprises.
“According to our channel checks, Boeing is close to producing 5 787s per month (4 per month at Everett and 0.66 per month at Charleston), which we view as a positive given that the company has guided to reaching 5 per month by year-end, on its way to loading 10 per month by the end of 2013,” the Credit Suisse report wrote.
“On the learning curve, we estimate that Boeing’s cash unit cost on 787 in Q2 was $236M per aircraft, which represented a $5M improvement per plane compared to Q1 and which would’ve improved further but for Q2 incorporating the first delivery from the Charleston facility, which had a higher cost than the Everett aircraft. We look for further cost improvement in Q3. Boeing delivered 12 787s in Q3, of which around half should be EMC (Everett Modification Center) aircraft, if comments by Boeing’s management on the Q2 call prove accurate,” the Credit Suisse report commented ahead of the release of Boeing’s 2012 3rd-quarter financial results this Wednesday.
“We made mistakes along the way. We are currently on path to achieve 10 a month. We know when we are going to pick them up and drop them off. We lost visibility in the supply chain,” Boeing vice president (VP) in charge of the 787′s supply chain management offered a candour in a Reuters interview.
On the 787-9, Boeing also achieved significant progress on the derivative, including the first batch of the initially built -9 examples to meet their airline-specific operating empty weight (OEW) target with later-built batches being 2% better than originally envisaged, Aspire Aviation‘s sources at Boeing said. This shows how far Boeing has come from on the weight reduction of the 787s, after LN1 weighed in at 109.9 tonnes (242,500lbs) in manufacturer’s empty weight (MEW), 9.75t (21,500lbs) over the target of 221,000lbs whereas LN7 and LN20 are 6.1t (13,500lbs) and 3.99t (8,800lbs) overweight, with Aspire Aviation learning that a 787 between LN66 and LN90 is still around 4 tonnes overweight, giving diminished hope on achieving the target of being on all OEW and MEW weight targets by LN90 (“Special Report: Boeing remains formidable even if BAE/EADS merger goes ahead“, 4th Oct, 12). The aircraft remains on course to be delivered to its launch customer Air New Zealand (ANZ) in early-2014, with Boeing reaffirming this delivery target following bankrupt American Airlines’ stock exchange filing saying the oneworld alliance member’s 787-9 deliveries were yet again delayed.
In addition, there was positive development in the General Electric (GE) GEnx engine failures, with the world’s biggest jet engine maker ordering checks on all 120 GEnx-1B and -2B engines regarding the stage one low-pressure turbine (LPT) nozzle on October 4 and Kelly Nantel, public affairs director for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) saying “aside from some minor collateral damage, the engine hardware forward of that point doesn’t exhibit any damage. Our initial findings indicate that the low-pressure turbine stage-one nozzle may have been improperly assembled” for a GEnx-2B engine that failed during a take-off in Shanghai on board one of AirBridge Cargo’s 747-8F freighters on September 11. Combined with fractured FMS (fan mid-shaft) issue on an Air India 787-8 powered by the GEnx-1B engines being traced to a lead-free coating applied to the engine shaft of which the coating process was reversed thereafter, this indicates that there is unlikely to be any major or fundamental design issue with the GE engine.
Last but not least, an imminent 787-10X launch is likely to result in a spate of new orders that reverses the sales trend in terms of net orders as airlines such as Australia’s Qantas Airways grapple with an ever-more challenging global economy, historically high fuel costs and wait for a validation of the 787′s entry into service (EIS) record which has proven to be largely smooth. This burst of momentum for the 787 Dreamliner programme, with a likely rise in orders following the -10X launch after the programme logged 43 net orders from 2008 to 2011 versus the 319 net orders for the long-haul, twin-aisle 777 jets in the same period, symbolises a rebirth of the once-beleaguered programme that earned many black eyes during its difficult and humbled beginning. Time flies and so does the 787 Dreamliner.
Image Courtesy of Boeing
October 22, 2012 - 10:43 pm
For BA the 787-10 would be an excellent TATL and EMEA aircraft. It’s real world range (including cargo, headwinds, Asian airfield temperatures etc.) would be more like 5000NM, making it a weak proposition for most of BA’s 777-200ER routes to Asia, but also e.g. SFO and LAX.
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=5000NM%40LHR&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720×360&PM=*
I think the A350-1000 looks like a good idea as a 777-200ER replacement on those flights. Just like Cathay concluded.
October 23, 2012 - 5:30 am
keesje,
I think you’re oversimplifying the calculations involved.
While the intense heat & headwinds do have an impact on take-off performance and the amount of fuel & payload an aircraft can carry, one should bear in mind that the 787-10X will be able to fly 96.5% of all A330-200 HGW missions & has 14% more range than an A330-300 HGW.
That is the medium to long-haul A330-200 flights we’re seeing today, including Rio de Janeiro-Paris, Paris-Tokyo Narita, Paris-Hong Kong, etc.
Airbus is also marketing a 5,950nm capability with 5 tonnes more payload for an A330-300 HGW. That, as Airbus puts it, opens up new market such as Kuala Lumpur-Paris, Tokyo-London, etc.
Unless you argue that an 233t A330-200 is unable to operate the Rio-Paris flight, etc today, otherwise discounting an aircraft’s range by upward of 1,700nm for headwinds & heat alone seems excessive.
And that’s before the improved A330s come into play which the 787-10X is going to accomplish their missions at a significant cost saving.
For cargo, you need a payload/range chart.
From LHR-SIN & LHR-Rio, which are just under 5,000nm (4,954nm) & 5,845nm long, an 233t A330-200 can accomplish that with 90,000lbs & 70,000lbs payload.
http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC_A330_Dec11.pdf
That said, the MZFW also matters as MZFW=OEW+payload & OEW=MEW+OI+SI, with the 787-10X being much lighter, it should be able to fly longer at the same payload or considerably more payload at the same range.
On COC, the 787-10X with a 25% lower fuel burn should roughly have a 8%-9% saving due to fuel accounting for as much as 40%, though the DOC saving will be less including capital cost.
October 22, 2012 - 11:59 pm
The current market leading twin is the A330-300, produced at 7-9 a month as we speak. It’s the direct reason Boeing developed the 787 and during the previous decade it hurt sales if the 767, 777-200ER and A340 and inspired the 787-10. It’s not included in the Boeing graph above. Hard to understand IMO.
October 23, 2012 - 8:18 am
787
October 23, 2012 - 8:22 am
Daniel,
To me, this is your best piece to date. I especially enjoyed how you point out the irony of Boeing taking a page from Airbus’ book in developing the 787-10 as a natural A330 replacement with slightly less range than the 777 and 350 series aircraft but with more efficiency on a majority of the routes those aircraft fly due to reduced aircraft weight. That dynamic is exactly why the A330 has experienced so much success in the marketplace, but Airbus seems to have shifted their attention towards chasing the 777 with the 350 program. I think you are spot on in your analysis of the -10 probably hurting the -8X prospects in much the same way the -9X will harm sales of the 747-8 Intercontinental. Accordingly, I think your advice that Boeing concentrate on the -9/10, Max, and -9X in that order makes sense.
I am curious, however, why you never mentioned Cathay Pacific, which is the world’s largest A330 operator, as a potential customer with much to gain as a -10 operator. They could fly the aircraft around the Asia Pacific region, down under, to the Middle East, and to Europe if desired. With so much risk still baked into the A350 program, a -10 order for CX might serve as a natural hedge against potential delays and/or performance shortfalls. The GEnx engine is already in service at CX on the 747-8F, and the 787 operates with the same type rating as the 777, only requiring differences training for 777 pilots (as I understand it). So the question becomes, why wouldn’t CX order the 787-10? Seems like an obvious choice, especially given CX’s high utilization of belly cargo volume and emphasis on passenger experience which has been lacking for some time now on the regional fleets.
October 23, 2012 - 8:45 am
Eric,
Really thanks~!
As for Cathay, my CX sources say it’s highly-interested in the 787-10X as A330-300 replacement as CX has the largest A330 fleet in the world with Dragonair.
But I don’t think CX’s discussion with Boeing is as advanced as either SIA or BA, given CX’s already large order book with 26 A350-1000s, 22 A350-900s & 21 777-300ERs.
The priority for CX at the moment is to break even after the first-half loss & continuously improve its cabin products like New Regional Biz, New Biz Class & New long-haul Economy.
That is not to say Cathay will not order the 787-10X, which I firmly believe eventually will. It’s just that the timing & CX’s priority at the moment means a 787-10X order is not imminent.
Hope this sheds colour on my thinking & I concur your point about revenue cargo volume, as CX carries 70% of all its cargo in passenger belly with remaining 30% carried in dedicated freighter.
The profit margin in belly cargo is really high as high as 60%.
October 23, 2012 - 5:28 pm
When I have time I will do a 787-10X and A350-900 SIN-LHR calculation, with 85% load factor, reasonable cabin layout, usual SIN temperatures, headwinds, reserves etc. and see how much payload is left for those long cargo belly’s.
Boeing badly needs a 777-200ER replacement / A350-900 competitor. They haven’t one at the moment, during the last 5 years and for 5 years to come. Boeing has 9 unfilled orders for the 777-200ER and 4 for the 200LR. That’s the issue. Choosing between an 777-8 (stretched, new wing) and a 787-10 (stretched, 787-8 wing), the 787-10 seems the best option IMO.
A rewinged 787-10 with further growth potential would be better and I can still see it happening, 787NG replacing both 777-200 and -300 versions. And an all new 380-500 seat VLA later on.
October 23, 2012 - 9:53 pm
Hi all, @keesje I would love to see those calculations when you get the time. I have been very curious about that but don’t possess the “know how” to do it myself…
October 23, 2012 - 7:43 pm
[...] seem to like this sort of thing here: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201…747-fleet.html http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/1…tions-on-777x/ The long awaited order might finally be announced in the near future it [...]
October 24, 2012 - 7:10 am
Daniel,
Great article. Regarding CX, I see that big block of A350-900 orders and I wonder, do you think a 787-10 launch would cause CX or other airlines to drop existing 359 orders in favor of the 787-10? From what you wrote, it looks like the 787-10 will have equal or slightly better seat count, better fuel burn, and better revenue cargo volume than the 359. Against that, all the 359 has is the increased range, commonality with the 350-1000, and about a 3-4 year advantage in EIS. I have a hard time seeing why an airline would want both the 787-10 and the 350-900 unless they need the 900′s range, is there one I’m missing?
October 24, 2012 - 2:51 pm
“I have a hard time seeing why an airline would want both the 787-10 and the 350-900 unless they need the 900′s range, is there one I’m missing?”
Try payload-range.
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PRchart787-10333359.jpg
October 24, 2012 - 6:04 pm
Would be interesting to see the real payload-range. Manufacturer specification usually is not quite consistent with real world operations.
787-10x would be a A330 killer. Airbus need to respond.
And A350-900 is a 777-200ER killer. Boeing need to respond.
But it might not be fair to compare 787-10x with A350-900 without the payload range. I’m not quite convinced that 787-10x can do LHR-HKG mission efficiently in real world, with a big stretch in fuselage.
Boeing’s seat counts is also questionable. With A350-900′s slightly shorter (1.4m) and wider (0.2m) fuselage, it would be interesting to see how Boeing puts only 299 seats in A350-900 and 323 seats in 787-10x in a typical 3-c configuration (maybe space on A350-900 is not efficiently used, or restricted by payload?).
It would be more helpful if we can run a real-life case, say in CX’s 3-c configuration on LHR-HKG mission, what is the trip cost, cash cost/seat, fuel burn, cargo capabilities and etc, in both 787-10 and 350-900.
October 25, 2012 - 6:09 am
The main driver for the business case on the 777X will be how good the A350-1000 is and it appears the detail on this is one or two years away before Boeing will know how, what and when they need to invest to protect their main product line. For IAG (British Airways) whilst some 787-10 will I am sure come into their fleet, with their main hub constrained with just two runways, capacity is key and getting the balance between the large twins and additional A380′s will I’m sure where the next orders lie for this carrier.
October 25, 2012 - 7:59 am
I think everyone who wants to what the A350-1000 is about knows.
Everyone is free to continue to state it not defined.
CX, SQ, UA and BA know.
I hope Boeings strategy will again be stating there is no problem & they have time.
October 25, 2012 - 8:17 am
Singapore Airlines, United Airlines & British Airways did not have A350-1000 orders.
November 1, 2012 - 7:21 pm
and here we go, within a week.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-31/united-said-to-study-biggest-airbus-a350-to-replace-boeing-747s
October 25, 2012 - 4:20 pm
UA, BA and SQ need 777-200ER replacements.
Yesterday it became clear SQ selected further A350s over 787 and 777 proposals for reason I stipulated a few days ago. It confirms the 787-10 is not the ideal long haul, heavy load platform for the very long flights from hot Singapore. BA and UA have many similar routes to Asia. 1+1= 2. And thats not an opinion.
October 25, 2012 - 7:04 pm
FYI: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/scoot-to-consider-a-mixed-787-fleet-378060/
I think all of us should be careful in not putting the cart before the horse.
October 25, 2012 - 10:04 pm
If a carrier (e.g. Scoot) is able to put in 9 abreast at 30-32 inch with a smaller regional 6-7 abreast business class product and a good cargo load, the 787-10 promises excellent opportunities for intra Asia, Leisure and e.g Transcon routes. I guess that’s were Boeing hopes to sell a pile of them..
Regarding the Boeing pictures above, I guess this one is synical:
http://www.aspireaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Screen-Shot-2012-10-22-at-01.42.37.png
“It says larger cross section, heavier build” while apparently they lost out over this cross section at CX, who didn’t dare to put in 9 seats across competing with 10 abreast A380, 9 abreast 777s, A350s and 8 abreast A330, A340s. The per seat costs looked less atractive when they did the calculations with 8 abreast configurations..
The “bigger, heavier” wings and engines are there for a reason too, ask SQ.
Anyway I guess Boeing biggest priority by far should be getting the 787-9 in the air, the specs look very good and the 787-8 gave them a steep learning curve..
October 26, 2012 - 12:06 am
Makes a lot of sense, Keesje!
But looks like 9-abreast for 787 is going to be the new norm, except for ANA. Qatar, United, LAN all uses 9, rather than 8-abreast. It might be ok for CX to use 9 on 787-10 intra-Asia
Just checked, LAN’s 787 Y seat width is 16.8inch (UA 17.1′), vs ANA’s 18.5inch. CX standard Y is also around 18.5inch on 33G and 77G. Big difference!
If SQ ever orders 787-10, it would definitely be used for intra-Asia. Long-haul heavy lifting will go to the 40 A350-900 (+20 options). If they use 8-abreast, i doubt CX will use 9. LOL
October 25, 2012 - 11:15 pm
Mr. Tsang, forgive my naivete, but I’m wondering why you don’t mention at all the freighter variant, which has outsold the other -200 variants combined since its introduction? Why would you instead not recommend a path for the -8X similar to the 747-8 development? I know Fed Ex is absolutely thrilled with their new new toy and I’d bet a shiny nickel that they’d love a better one. Following that with solid passenger variant would surely supplant both the 200-ER and -LR models and could stomp the Kangaroo Route with fuel to spare.
Are freighters simply the Rodney Dangerfield of aircraft?
October 28, 2012 - 1:20 pm
Rob,
I think the -8LXF or a freighter, is too far off the agenda and may probably come in the early 2020s.
Boeing should focus on bringing the 777-9X into the market by mid-2019, then a -8LX in the early 2020s & could only talk about a -8LXF then.
The 777-8X’s business case is really not strong at all.
October 26, 2012 - 5:16 am
IMHO, it seems kind of restrictive to have seat width as one of the determining factors of new aircraft purchases. Let’s just say, hypothetically, that the 787-10X ends up being a real ‘game-changer’ which exceeds everyone’s expectations on short-medium haul flights. Will an airline put themselves at an economic disadvantage just to add a few mm/cm/tenth of an inch to a seat that passengers are increasingly not willing/able to pay for? Especially in the economic uncertainty we find ourselves in quite often these days. Once upon a time, Boeing 747′s featured lounges on the upper deck and 9-abreast Y. From what I’ve heard DC-10′s had 8-abreast Y. However, as fantastic and ideal as it sounds, that has changed. The same thing is happening now. The 777 with 10-abreast isn’t fantastic but it makes sense. The same can be said for the 787. More and more airlines will change over to the ‘dark side’.
Once they do, I am sure it will become increasingly difficult for some airlines (like CX and SQ) to compete if they stick to ideal, but unrealistic, seating arrangements.
PS: I am in no way bashing any Airbus product. I am an aviation enthusiast and love both Airbus and Boeing.
October 26, 2012 - 10:23 am
Narrow seats on 787-10 would be ok for CX/SQ regional routes. I’m sure economics would be great with that seating arrangements for short-medium haul.
A350-900 and 777-8X will have their own market. The problem with 777-8x is when it is going to be available, while A350-900 looks like on track for a 2014/15 EIS.
When CX 787-10 orders come, it would be a whopping 70+ plus (maybe by batches) to replace all A330-300, together with DragonAir.
October 26, 2012 - 5:58 pm
I drew up a “A330-10x” years ago. Similar to the 787-10x giving in payload-range for lower CASM.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/218686/
IMO Airbus still has this option. They have looked for new engines for over a decade and the strteches (e.g. A340-500 fuselage lenght) and a center gear (A340-300) are on the shelf,
The A330F nose gear could give addition inches of ground clearance, more then compensating additional (said to be minor) drag and make it an excellent candidate for cargo conversions later on.
October 28, 2012 - 11:23 am
WRT the A350, I think CX’s conversion of so many 900s to 1000s probably says quite a bit about the anticipated seat costs on the 900. CX has long avoided the 777-200LR for seat cost reasons even when they were available secondhand at excellent prices. Like the 200LR, the 900 might be “too much airplane” for the majority of the missions it will be asked to perform. Perhaps CX does intend to buy the 787-10 and/or more A330s than it already has on order.
November 1, 2012 - 10:59 pm
[...] I think the real plane that UA wants it the 787-10X. No way to get BA moving quicker than to leak stories about buying the A350-1000. Read this: http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/1…tions-on-777x/ [...]
November 1, 2012 - 11:18 pm
I think the 787-10X would be an excellent aircraft for almost all transatlantic flights. I remembering NWA starting transatlantic operations with the similar A330-300. High loadfactors and full cargo belly’s. Operating costs 35% lower then the DC10s they replaced.. For flights to Asia they need more wing & engine.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/united-said-to-study-airbus-a350-1000-to-replace-boeing-747s–bloomberg-news-20121031-01753#.UJKQbG_Qc2w
CX, SQ, possibly UA, maybe BA next week & smell the coffee Chicago. Sometimes I’m seriously worried about Boeing understanding the market. They dropped the ball on the A320 NEO & now the same seems to be happening on the A350-1000. Saying they are talking to customers to understand the needs, they have time, the current product will do, the competitor is undefined, they’ll always have the best product, etc. And then key customers don’t agree.
November 3, 2012 - 12:18 pm
Airbus does not want to cannibalize A350 sale by improving the A330
Boeing does not want to kill off the passenger version of hte 747
So there is a giant game of chicken with each one trying to maneuver in the narrow voids in between each product line (Airbus splitting the difference between the A330/787 category and the 777 with the A350 opens all sorts of questions in product as they no longer compete head to head)
If Boeing doe the technically right move, the 777 will kill off the 747 passenger (composite wing and the major improvement from that and the longer length)
Boeing has nothing to loose in the 787-10 as it takes out the A330 (assuming Airbus does not improve it for those who want to keep it and are not fond of Boeing)
The irony is that Boeing could have improved the 767 at a far cheaper cost than the 787 and come very close to the same efficient and made the -400 competitive.
Airbus has ceded the A300 size to Boeing and now the A330 category longer term.
SIA seems to feel the A350-900 will do what it wants, but then there is going to be the delays as it hits its teething issues. As it was thrown together with what Airbus could scrape up technology wise its going to be a worse mess than the 787 (per Av week, massive changes of 70% occur in one trenche to the next which means repeating the same issues of learning the setup over and over again.
I think Boeing is counting on that to hold up the 1000 and allowing them to delay that decision (and investment).
FedEx is NOT going to want to change to the 777-8X after all the moves to the 777-200F (not to mention a freighter would be something like 2030 following the normal trends. FedEx is just retiring the DC10s. so they hang on to planes a LONG time
All you can say is its in flux, and per the response to the A320NEO, you know when someone has been hurt enough that they announce what they are going to do about it.
Interesting but nothign changes until their mind does and then we see where it goes.
November 3, 2012 - 7:28 pm
With the wisdom of today, a short -medium range 767-300/-400 with winglets, bigger GENX and a 6 abreast premium and 8 abreast high density economy class could have been a hit transcon, intra asia, leisure.. New cockpits and cabin were already introduced..
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2007-9/7344.jpg..
November 28, 2012 - 12:00 am
[...] as a replacement of its 46 strong Boeing 777-200ER fleet over most transatlantic routes (“Launch of Boeing 787-10X has implications on 777X programme“, 22nd Oct, [...]
January 3, 2013 - 7:21 pm
[...] more fuel efficient than the 777-300ER and a 16% lower cash operating cost (COC) per seat (“Launch of Boeing 787-10X has implications on 777X programme“, 22nd Oct, [...]
February 14, 2013 - 3:42 pm
[...] be operated by the 787-10X comfortably, in addition to London-Tokyo Haneda at 5,161nm long (“Launch of Boeing 787-10X has implications on 777X programme“, 22nd Oct, [...]
April 17, 2013 - 10:28 pm
[...] load of passengers, than the 4-class 224-seat 777-200ERs or 3-class 275-seat 777-200ERs (“Launch of Boeing 787-10X has implications on 777X programme“, 22nd Oct, [...]
April 26, 2013 - 7:49 am
[...] A350-900, as well as holding a 5% COC advantage over the 350-seat A350-1000 on such sectors (“Launch of Boeing 787-10X has implications on 777X programme“, 22nd Oct, [...]