There wasn't proper research put into this work. The B787-10 isn't lacking in sales. From EIS to date, the B787-10 has gained more orders than the B787-8. Sales of the B787-8 has been close to nothing since 2011. This was intentional by Boeing, preferring to sell the larger B787-9 than the smaller one. Coming to the B787-10ER/HGW, The B787-10 is MTOW limited and not fuel limited as perceived by media. The current B787-10 shares the same MTOW and fuel tank as the B787-9. At 254t, the B787-10 will only be able to load up around 60-65t of fuel (at MZFW), that's about 35-40t less than max fuel. It will be like 80-85t of fuel (to get Boeing brochure range of 11,910km), that's still 15-20t left. Soo adding extra fuel tank just removes valuable cargo space for Airlines with out achieving anything. The MTOW increase of 6t will only enable it fill existing tanks more. Unlike the B787-10, it's less of an issue for the B787-9. At the same 6t increase, it should enable it carry the same payload for longer and/or carry even more payload for the same distance. Adding more fuel tanks to anything doesn't always solve the issue. The A321 has an almost identical issue with the B787-10 and Airbus has been able to experiment with different configurations to deliver 8,000km+ range.
NOTE: Airbus have been steadily increasing the MTOW and range of the A350 without adding any extra fuel tanks. The increase is just to have more allowance for the existing tanks.
There wasn't proper research put into this work. The B787-10 isn't lacking in sales. From EIS to date, the B787-10 has gained more orders than the B787-8. Sales of the B787-8 has been close to nothing since 2011. This was intentional by Boeing, preferring to sell the larger B787-9 than the smaller one. Coming to the B787-10ER/HGW, The B787-10 is MTOW limited and not fuel limited as perceived by media. The current B787-10 shares the same MTOW and fuel tank as the B787-9. At 254t, the B787-10 will only be able to load up around 60-65t of fuel (at MZFW), that's about 35-40t less than max fuel. It will be like 80-85t of fuel (to get Boeing brochure range of 11,910km), that's still 15-20t left. Soo adding extra fuel tank just removes valuable cargo space for Airlines with out achieving anything. The MTOW increase of 6t will only enable it fill existing tanks more. Unlike the B787-10, it's less of an issue for the B787-9. At the same 6t increase, it should enable it carry the same payload for longer and/or carry even more payload for the same distance. Adding more fuel tanks to anything doesn't always solve the issue. The A321 has an almost identical issue with the B787-10 and Airbus has been able to experiment with different configurations to deliver 8,000km+ range.
I think they are banking on the 777-8 to actually take longer ranges and larger capacity so that the dreamliner remains for relatively thin transpacific missions
Shrinks never work, I don't think it will this time either. The A350 will still be more efficient for this market segment, Boeing would have to make the -8 a lot cheaper than the A350-1000 for it to work, due to the reduction in capital acquisition costs. The 777-9 has a chance because it is larger than any A350 variant. Airbus has tried to shoehorn in 10 across to the -1000 to try to match it, but no airline has purchased the 10 abreast option.
My friend flies 787's. I hadn't realised that airlines are planning for 787 crew to fly the 777x as that's a better match. So basically they are treating the 777x as a 787 - meaning the 777x won't automatically be flown by existing 772/773 crew. So the 777x is becoming the 787-10, if that makes sense.
Was gonna say. Isn’t the 787-10 and the new 777 kinda overlapping in market share?? Seems like they serve the same purpose now that the engines are so efficient that long range is the norm
They kept the 787-10 that way to prop up and protect 777-8's market share. But alas I think Airbus has Boeing in checkmate as its shooting 2 birds with 1 stone which is the A350 😢
So it would seem. Boeing has lost its advantage in the market through quality control and design issues, that reveal a different culture than used to characterise Boeing aircraft.
787 was originally made for medium capacity long haul category, it's a replacement for 767, which comes mainly in a330 type of service, I know it's not enough to slightly change it, but not many airlines even need to fly ultra longer routes, even Qantas, Singapore Airlines and Air New Zealand already bet on the 787 and bought dozens of it, i see that -10 little upgrade gonna be a smash hit for average carriers who don't need to fly ultra long
@@rod_at_adelaide5766 yeah but they have 14 787-9's and bought more 6 of the -9 and 6 of the -10 models, so in the bit shorter routes they're depending on lighter airframe of 787, also a350-1000ULR will be used mostly to Sydney as I heard
Singapore Airlines** and they don't use the 787 for long haul flights. They use the A350, A380 and B777 just because they're more economical. They' have attempted to use the 787 for medium haul flights within Asia but they're selling their 787s to low-cost carriers, so safe to say it doesn't work out for full-service carriers.
@@etjh0071 yeah thank you, I know by the way yes, that is what I said read again, it's not for ultra long flights, only like a330 for some carriers they often use it for medium and sometimes for long haul, and average sized carriers like EgyptAir and Royal Air Maroc and Gulf Air use it as their long haul aircraft cuz they don't need to fly ultra long, so it's fitted to that type of service, how many times do i need to explain to someone in comments?!
So let me see if I understand this. The 787-10 had the potential to be a powerful competitor to the A350 but penny-pinching bean counters wanted to save money so they denied it the ability to compete on an equal basis. Right? Because cutting corners to save money always works, right?
@@burleystinnett9094 Sure. Until the fires start, and the cheap parts make them fall out of the sky. Obviously, you have no background in Engineering or Safety culture. 'merica!
They blew 50 billion on the jet. They will likely not recoup their investment. Modifying the wing adds another 10+ billion in costs to the program. The original sin was Boeing engineers not envisaging growth or shrink of the wing to meet different demands.
Thats really cool that you scored an interview with a Boeing VP! Congratulations, love seeing independent journalists grow and displace the cable-tv bobbleheads.
i know this feedback will prolly go unheard, but you'd do well to include payload-range charts instead of just blanket range figures, it would paint a much fuller picture. thoertically, an airline wants to carry 320 pax (110kg combined pax, luggage, and seat weight) + 5 tons of belly freight. if you are to consult the 787-10's payload-range chart, you'd realize it would only be able to fly about 9800km (5300nm) carrying that much, while an A350-900 NPS would carry the same payload 13000km (7000nm). in other words, Boeing would have to do significantly more than small improvements to get the 787-10 on par with the A350-900.
@@steinwaldmadchen The real trade off is fuel efficiency. studies found the 787-10 to be considerably more fuel efficient than the A359 (smaller wings aren't such a bad thing after all), but then airbus can offer much deeper discounts since they broke even on the A350 long ago, while it remains unclear if boeing will ever break even on the 787 program.
@@AA-ks7bo In terms of trip cost 787-10 and A350-900 is actually neck in neck. They have very similar in weight and technology. 787-10 stands out by having a longer fuselage. As long as it can carry the extra passengers and cargo, its unit cost is lower. Meanwhile A350 is more optimised on longer routes, thus carrying more payload further. So even United crossed the Pacific with 787-10, it is not the best way to use it.
I’ve been on a 787-10 and it’s a solid and efficient people hauler. But limited range and long runway requirements are a minus. I wouldn’t call it a failure as it can still do a 12 hour flight. It probably won’t “take off” in sales until more 777-200/ER’s are retired.
True, but by then the 787J will be competing with the A359! So, only airlines the truly require it will buy it, otherwise they will go for the A359, like JAL did to replace their aging 777s. This is a similar tale with the A330s replacement in the future, likely airlines will choose the 787 over the A330neo.
@@alvinloh9068 haha you sure are a stalker of mine. The a350 crackliner is a total flop cracking so badly 6 other airlines experienced the same issue LMFAOOO a fail of airbus for sure LMFAOOOO
@@nickolliver3021 Nobody stalks you and cause you're crying all over the internet, darling! Shame shame Nicky, Copying others like what you usually do best - a lapdog is the best you could ever do. Yeah, we've seen Nick Oliver, useless lapdog as always, with his triggered Boeing fanboyism crying, biting his fingers in this channel as the years go on. He won't even believe what Boeing issues they are experiencing (and it is apparent to the world OMFG when Boeing wings are cracking inside out, the fuselage and paints peeling off, collapsed landing gear, misaligned structures and most importantly, MCAS leading to two tragic crack incidents in aviation history. Logic, explosions, combustible... it doesn't matter Boeing, the trash ticks them all, and Nicky is all pro-Boeing and anti-Airbus. Anything he says is not worth even mentioning whatsoever! What a sad clown! No authority will believe a word Nicky says, as he's merely a public joke not worth mentioning staning for Boeing for no reason, probably a sad clunky 7-year-old white knight wannabe. Nicky, the sad Barbie, is here telling everyone Boeing is always the perfect one without any faults, well at least he is delusional enough to accuse whatever Boeing's downfalls, fallacies and debacles had something to do with Airbus due to his pitiful insecurity and enviousness on Airbus's continual successes. If the dogshit 737 max were going to crash tomorrow and the public wouldn't be surprised anyway, he would still think Boeing remains in good quality, yikes.
Maybe Boeing 797 may change Boeings production and being more successful. And also maybe Boeing 797 can make more orders and flights unlike 787-10, this may make Boeing actually beat airbus or smth idk.
If the 787-10 is cheaper in development and operating cost but only lacks travel distance compared to the competition, that can actually be resolved easily as long as the operating cost is much lower than other aircrafts of the same passenger capacity by tweaking the system. I usually travel from MNL-LAX (also MLA-SFO alternatively) and back but I noticed on the return, we would usually take a short stop in Guam for refueling before continuing to MNL. (This was with the B-747 plane) The MNL-LAX route did not need refueling and so it was a direct flight but after some research I found out it was due to the help of the eastern jet stream phenomenon as it helped boost the flight from a strong tailwind, but not so on the reverse flight as planes fly against the stream. Only once did we have a direct flight from LAX-MNL and it was found to be due to the flight being only about half full or so, thereby lighter in weight. So the tweak here is just to incur more refueling stops (no need for passenger offloading). However one issue which was not covered extensively of why sales of this model was not going well is probably due to Boeing's credibility which has faltered lately, in lieu of the many defects of their planes encountered and also crashes partly due to their erroneous design/poor computer programming, etc.
The problem with Boeing is they’re more worried about quantity than quality and making their planes cheaper, and Airbus on the other hand makes sure they’re building top quality stuff, which is why they’re winning.
266 orders out of 1909. I would hardly call that a failure. With the current rate of orders coming in & the number of planes being delivered. I doubt whether Boeing are worried.
Especially when you factor in the -8 came out 2011 and the dash 9 came out in 2014 where as the -10 didn't come out till 2018. When you look at it the -8 is the under performing bird.
@@deannelson9565 The 789 not only could fly more passengers but also didn't have much shorter range than the 788, but the latter probably already offers enough capacity for LCCs due to their higher-density seat layout e.g. Scoot's 788s seat 326 pax while ZipAir's ones seat 288 (the latter are second-hand from Japan Airlines I remember)
@@nickolliver3021 I don't know, if they can't fit the extra gas in the wings, maybe they could squeeze it into the tail and secretly install Super-MCAS to rebalance the jet.
@@nickolliver3021 I thought it would have been clear my last post was a joke. I was proposing the most absurd way they could try to fit more fuel onto the jet.
9:14 its not about reinforcement of the struts and gear assembly. Its about tire area... distribution of that weight among more tires spread it out over a larger area. The limit is tires. Not the gear.
I don't know what weight margin if any there might be in the struts (the long-lead item when upgrading gear components), but "footprint" often becomes a problem when an airframer looks to go higher and higher on MTOW. Regardless of how strong the gear structure and tires are, a pavement can only take so much. It won't fail outright, but accumulates fatigue damage and so limits are placed on the stress an airliner gear can impose. Those limits aren't as simple as just tire pressure/load, but that's a decent proxy for what's involved. A great example was the DC-10 vs the L-1011. The 10 was designed from the beginning to eventually take a dual center main landing gear, while the 1011 was not. Douglas sold plenty of long-range 10s as a result, while Lockheed was stuck with shortening the fuselage + jacking up tire pressure (of tires with more capacity than the standard 1011 one) to the most that airport authorities would allow. It still wasn't competitive with the DC-10-30 for long high-density routes, but at least it gave them a product to offer for that segment.
Just wanna say that I absolutely love your videos! I'm not in the aviation industry at all, but I've always been an aviation fan, and you're videos really provides a great window. Thanks so much for making these videos!
It`s always funny if a non expert is talking about airplanes. Issue is usually not fuel capacity but MTOW. It`s also not about range that much, but about payload - range and in field performance. The Ten might be one of these planes that just got a little stretched too far, thus it has excellent economics. Still, airlines find great use for it. SIA uses their Tens for inner Asia missions with great success, flying high demand missions with a large economy class. United flys theirs across the Atlantic, great plane for these 6-8 hour missions if you don`t need to carry much cargo. Qantas will use the Ten to fly their routes to Asia. Etihad has great use for their plane, having multiple favorable missions to Europe that are ideal for the Ten, despite having hot & high issues. The competition the Ten faces is underrated. Her smaller sibling is a strong competitor that can fly almost every thinkable route and is perfectly sized as the 250-280 Pax plane. The A359 is the same size and delivers a stronger performance with more capabilities. It has sold 1000 units and is a fantastic plane. People underestimate how good A359 and B789 work for airlines. And, a bit forgotten, if you need a WB for shorter routes, the A339 can come cheap and is available. Also, don`t forget that many orders still can be changed. As air travel grows over time and airlines need more capacity, with many families orders shifted to the stretched versions. Overall, i don`t think the Ten is doing bad. It`s a great airplane if you need to fly above 300 pax on 4-8h missions and there are plenty of routes out there. A little bit more wing, a little bit more thrust, a little bit more range, and you have made an already attractive airplane even better.
It seems that Boeing’s Management Team sucks and it prides itself on making ALL THE WRONG DECISIONS (reason #4) and while this is going on their credibility with their customers and potential customers keeps on eroding (reason #5 and perhaps the most important).
@@flyontop What has the fact that the 787-10 isnt getting orders got to do with Boeings management team sucks? their credibility with customers and potential customers is not eroding! The 787 program is doing really well now
If the 737 program or the quality of the later 747-8 models vs the 400 or the Air Force’s 76 Frankentanken fiasco, or perhaps the CTK joke of a program that Boeing has with the tools left inside aircraft then I really don’t know. But if you feel that they are doing great it is your opinion. Only on future sales is where we will get the real answers. Let’s start by asking United.
The -10 is an excellent sub-12h jet (similar to the A330-300), and (as much of an Airbus fan I am), beats the A359 & matches the A35K on a per seat mile basis on an identical config setup for a 6-7 hour mission. One big issue with the 78J is that on missions with decent pax & cargo, it refuses to trim the aircraft until the last 30T of fuel or so, thanks to its wing. So at high weights; it's constantly needing to decide to not trim, fly lower at higher airspeed, or fly at a high mach. Airbus had foresight to play around with the chord of the wing structure without affecting commonality too much. This is shown in the A359 & A35K, and also between A330s & A340s (and trim tanks on them too). Boeing sunk 50 billion USD into a wing that has little accommodation for modification without decimating commonality and requiring a whole array of re-certification and $$$ Boeing needs to forget about getting a significant pricing premium of the 78J over the 789, and sell it how it's supposed to be sold; a medium haul jet for sub-5000nm flights right up against the A339 and A359R
There wasn't proper research put into this work. The B787-10 isn't lacking in sales. From EIS to date, the B787-10 has gained more orders than the B787-8. Sales of the B787-8 has been close to nothing since 2011. This was intentional by Boeing, preferring to sell the larger B787-9 than the smaller one. Coming to the B787-10ER/HGW, The B787-10 is MTOW limited and not fuel limited as perceived by media. The current B787-10 shares the same MTOW and fuel tank as the B787-9. At 254t, the B787-10 will only be able to load up around 60-65t of fuel (at MZFW), that's about 35-40t less than max fuel. It will be like 80-85t of fuel (to get Boeing brochure range of 11,910km), that's still 15-20t left. Soo adding extra fuel tank just removes valuable cargo space for Airlines with out achieving anything. The MTOW increase of 6t will only enable it fill existing tanks more. Unlike the B787-10, it's less of an issue for the B787-9. At the same 6t increase, it should enable it carry the same payload for longer and/or carry even more payload for the same distance. Adding more fuel tanks to anything doesn't always solve the issue. The A321 has an almost identical issue with the B787-10 and Airbus has been able to experiment with different configurations to deliver 8,000km+ range.
NOTE: Airbus have been steadily increasing the MTOW and range of the A350 without adding any extra fuel tanks. The increase is just to have more allowance for the existing tanks.
It's worth noting that the JFK-AKL route for the 787 has been plagued with problems. A strong headwind is all that's needed to force AirNZ to need a fuel stop halfway across the Pacific.
What they need to do is to reconfigure their planes with less sets. That’s how Singapore Airlines is able to send A350ULRs from Singapore all the way to EWR
Also, why did Boeing build 787-10 to compete with the A350-900, instead of building a smaller 777-7X to compete with the A350-900, since the 777 has more range than the 787-10? They could've use the 777-200 airframe to create an even smaller 777X, the -7?
Shrinks have poor economics. A 777-7 would be far heavier than an A350-900 and burn more fuel because of it. It is why Airbus cancelled the A350-800 shrink and instead updated the A330 family with new engines.
Why didn't Boeing upgrade the 757 with new wings and more efficient engines, new interior etc. etc call it the 757 Max to compete with the A321 neo? Why? Because it's run by idiots.
I believe a smaller 777X will not be as cost efficient in operations as an a350-900 or 787-10 would be and it probably wouldn’t have had enough sales numbers to justify creating the variant. Although the 777X would have a higher MTOW rating and have engines powerful enough for places with high altitude airports or hot desert climate like the middle-east.
That would be cool, but the 777-8X already suffers from airframe optimization problem (wing & engine being too big). Also, it would give Airbus an even longer headstart. The 777-7X would take even longer to enter the market, and by that time, the A350 would already take over the market (787-10's problem, but way worse).
Either you’re a big Boeing fan or ignorant. The A330neo competes with the B787-8 and -9. There was no -10 when the neo program was made. How can it compete with a non existent plane?
I've already covered this in other videos, so might not warrant its own breakdown. But long story short, the -300ER is still a fairly young family and most airlines aren't ready to retire them (yet). That should start changing in the very near term - EVA, JAL, even Emirates are all now looking at the plane as a replacement for the 777
@@cobyexplanes -- Japan Airlines just started putting the A350 as a 777 replacement into service. The delay was caused by product supply chains. JAL is now going in heavy on Airbus, when its A350 order was its first ever Airbus order.
@@AEMoreira81 Yup I read that JAL was traditionally a loyal Boeing customer (like ANA) as quite a number of Boeing's suppliers are Japanese too e.g. lithium-ion batteries by GS Yuaza, fueslage & wings by Mitsubishi & Kawasaki
I think you might have missed one of the main issues of a larger fuselage and same wing. The wing loading is increased above the ideal drag values, making the wing ultimately less efficient. The 777-300 has this same issue.
The 787-9 replaced a significant number of 777-200 and 777-200ERs as the cabin lengths are almost identical so it was a "plug-in replacement" for many airlines. There are a not-insignificant number of 777-300ERs in operation today that are used for their capacity, not their range, and I believe the 787-10 should sell fairly well into that market as it is lighter than the A350-1000 and much lighter than the 777X.
Depending on payload requirement. A350-900 can carry 10t more payload than 787-10 beyond 5000nm, or fly 1300nm further with the same payload. It is slightly smaller than 787-10 and more expensive, but the payload-range advantage is enough to pay off on longer routes.
I know United replaced their 200ERs with the 787-9s on the Sydney - Los Angeles & Sydney - San Francisco routes. Heck, even United fly from the major Australian east coast cities to Los Angeles & San Francisco using the 787-9s!
@@andrewyoung3299 For some airlines 787 may work, but still doesn't change the fact that A350 is the better lifter. On SIN-SFO for example United often has to block 1-2 rows of seats on its 257-seat 789s in winter, while SIA's 253-seat 359 can always with all seats filled plus some cargo. On SIN-LAX United decided the payload restriction is too severe for 789 to be profitable, while SIA flies up to twice daily with the same 253 seat 359.
B787-10 competes with the A350-900 in terms of capacity. A350-1000 competes with the B777-300ER. The B787-10 is better suited for dense routes under 7-8 hours for its lower weight but loses out on flexibility and range of the A350-900, which can also be reconfigured as ultra long range (ULR).
Say what @kiskaloo? I can't see the 7810 replacing the 77W on that many routes. These will mostly go A350-1000 unless Boeing pulls a rabbit out of it's hat on the 777X efficiency.
If you're an airline buying planes, you often buy them for the future. Not certainly knowing what routes will be populair in 10-20 years but having the option of serving longer routes if there is demand will therefore be a strong plus for the Airbus.
With the sentiment regarding Boeing build quality at the moment I think Airbus needs to think about doubling the the A350 production schedule! I'm flying JAL 787 8/9 SYD to LHR in May and looking forward to my first flight on the 787.
Airbus is now planning to bring the A350 program build from an average of five aircraft per month in 2022, to nine in 2025, an 80% increase. Even the relatively slow-selling A330neo will see growth from three aircraft per month to 4
Your first flight on any BOEING commercial aircraft...might just be your last!!! When the people who build the airplane say, in no uncertain terms, they wouldn't dare fly on one of those planes...that ought to tell you something!!
... it sounds good to say an ER version of the v10 would be a transpacific plane. However, the most profitable routes in the world are transatlantic, for which the current range of v10 is fine. And the 787 does a great job at replacing the aging 767s. Airlines like United and Air Canada need twin aisle planes to service both profitable heavy routes within North America, and transatlantic at the same time. At the moment, v9 and 300ERS work for transpacific just fine. ... What Boeing needs to "fix" is getting the 777X out the door.
Even 789 fall short in payload when compares to 772, while A350 is actually slightly better than similar sized 777s. Therefore many airlines in Asia, especially with strong cargo demand, prefer A350 over 787 as their workhorse. Cathay for example has zero 787s, while in SIA 787 are exclusively regional. It doesn't mean 787 is bad, but it's better suit for lightly loaded flights. btw Asian carriers are more willing to invest in new aircraft, as the routes are more demanding, fuel saving is more significant, while competition is fierce. For example, majority of early 77Ws delivered before 2010 are to Asian or Middle East carriers, while 744 has largely faded out from their Transpacific fleets in the 2010s. 20 years is considered old here.
...You make a very good point. Cargo capacity (and ease of loading and unloading) is more important in Asia than elsewhere. In North America, it is all about the business traveler. tourists demand such low fares, they get what they get, and they complain but won't pay more. ...However with freight, Boeing has to get the 777X out the door. It is the future for freight and long haul PAX travel. Thus the Emirates 777X order. ... On fleet age, you are correct. But I would like to note the large outstanding orders by North American carriers. Both for twin and single aisle planes. The age problem was really a corporate merger problem, and that is finally being sorted out.@@steinwaldmadchen
@@christopherjared1277 I doubt 777X still have the cargo advantage right now. 777-9 is still physically bigger, but its higher MTOW is not enough to compensate its much higher OEW, let alone fuel burn. 777X's delay has given Airbus plenty of time to improve its offerings. I don't think TATL operators have the urge to replace aircraft that often. After all, LAX-SVO is a mere 12h flights, while for the same time you can't reach anywhere beyond PVG from YVR. In fact for shorter TATL routes often it's cheaper to fly A330CEO and burn more fuel than buying any new aircraft, A330NEO included.
... I was thinking that the majority of volume for Asian airfreight was within Asia, no? Moving around parts and pieces towards final assembly? If that is the case, the MTOW would not come into play, not that much fuel is needed. ... Regarding aircraft age. United Airlines has orders for 150 x 787s, plus options for another 100. Before covid, Air Canada had initiated a merger with Air Transat, thus to put the fleets together, it made sense for AC to purchase used A330s from SIA. But that merger is off, and AC is instead seeking fleet commonality, and recently ordered 20 of v10s. Both United and Air Canada will be flying all variants of 787.@@steinwaldmadchen
@@christopherjared1277 A lot of them are TPAC, for example Cathay Pacific used to ship quite a lot of iPhones from CGO to US via its HKG hub. Remember Asia has been the manufacturing powerhouse. While N. American carriers do make big orders, they have some really old fleet to be replaced. United for example has 763s and 772s at 28 and 24.2 years on average respectively, which both are even less efficient than A330CEO. For reference JAL's 77Ws are already at the way out, despite the oldest is barely at 20.8 years. ME3 and SIA are famous for ditching aircraft early as well. Flight length determinds how significant the fuel savings can outweight acqusition cost.
so the a350-1000 has 5 more orders then the 787-10 what’s your point again, you don’t like boeing aircraft I get it 😮, but then again there are 453 777x orders so why don’t you say you airlines really don’t like the A350-1000
@@TJEyre I agree you cannot compare the two aircraft A350-1000. but airbus made this one aircraft to compete with two different aircraft types and that’s a fact
I live in the Caribbean where we see the 777-200 from British Airways know those birds have some age on them and they will eventually retire them but I always wondered what will they send in place.
The 787 is a great aircraft, and better than the A350 in several ways. However, we must remember that the 787 is not the direct competitor for the A350. Boeing is betting that the 777x will be the number one selling aircraft for their wide-body jets.
@@kylecampbell1444 Do note that 359's MTOW has already grown from 275t in 2014 to 283t right now (which is more than the 6t gain of 787 IGW0, as well as having a much more long haul optimised design. It would be good enough for many airlines, but not taking away the crown from A350.
Boeing Commercial doesn't have the money or time to work a Boeing 787-10ER dues to the the B737MAX fiasco. By the time Boeing does work on -10ER variant, Airbus will have the A350-1000lr version being develop from the A350-1000 'extend range' as purchase by Qantas for Project Sunrise.
There is already a 787-10ER, it is call 777X, the 350 never was a competition for the 787, it was for the 777, in fact airbus is working on an airplane to compete in that specific segmen.
On December 2023, I flew on Saudia Boeing 787-10 from Jeddah to Kuala Lumpur. When I was in B787-10, it was my nightmare bcuz it's cabin was quiet smaller than other wide body aircraft and when I tried to sleep it was impossible bcuz it small and I can only sleep less than 2 hours and when I see your video I now knew B787-10 14% smaller than b777-200. Maybe later when I go on the same route I choose Malaysia airlines 😅 (BTW thank you for you information about B787-10)
If 258 built 787-10s, which is still in production, is a “fail”, what is 251 total life production a380s? I’m glad Airbus hit a home run with the a350 series to keep the company solvent after that “fail” “debacle” “fiasco” “disaster” “catastrophe.”
Boeing’s entire commercial aviation division is a failure. Instead of building great products, they became a bank and their product line will fade into the sunset
The issues raised are really important to think about! But the point is that Boeing are not willing to make the 787-10 a 777 competitor. Or at least is still a dilemma if they want to fill the sales gap to the A350-1000…
Gee, I can’t imagine why nobody’s interested After all, Boeing has a Sterling safety and reliability reputation in recent years, and certainly nobody thinks they’re putting profits ahead of making quality aircraft
Part of the problem is all the different models, they need to bang out one before they start another, when you jump around, it creates a lot of problems we have seen 😊
I thought this video was going to be a good one. Unfortunately, approximately a minute and a half into it, we see a commercial imbedded in the video. That's when I stop watching ANY video. Those of us who are premium members pay to avoid commercials between videos. So RU-vid simply allows or enables commercials to be inserted DURING the videos. Seems a little dishonest. A LINK to a commercial or provider merchandise is different in that it allows the viewer chooses to watch it. That's acceptable. I don't do commercials and hope others will follow my lead on this.
As a pilot, that only thing I can say is? Oy vey /dios mio Boeing. Who dropped the ball? Competitive, customer needs, and customer desires research are something one learns in Marketing 101.
I prefer the 787-8 and 787-9 These guys are fancy looking aircraft that also surprisingly enough, made the A350 possible But if you want to make a long distance flight now days…. Use both
@@ivanviera4773 XD!!! having vocations of a messiah coming to earth makes le laugh. Looks like the Airbus Fanboys don't know that more 787-10s have been sold than A350-1000s. As for the 777-9 with 450 sales, You are pathetic but funny!
I think its still a win for boeing. I mean 787 never mean to be A350 rival in the first place but 787-10 plus improvement in MTOW is enough to steal some A350 market while 777X will tackel the rest. And 787-10 case is not as bad as A330 Neo program, both in development cost and actual sales.
Well, we flew back overnight ORD to LHR on BA0296 on G-ZBLB. The second -10 delivered and we flew on it two years back. Nice new BA Club World (business ) suites and nothing fell off or out!. I reckon that BA now have about seven of these and more on order. Once Charlston stops smoking dope and starts building airframes again, roll on! So long as I walk away from it, it's a good landing.
I am suspicious about this claim. Boeing is gaining orders gradually, and I believe this keep growing. For example, UA can fly from Tokyo to Chicago with this aircraft.
Airlines are facing a new issue: passengers do not want to flight on 787s and 737s MAX. I wouldn't be surprised if even other versions sales would drop in the future. Boeing killed the golden eggs goose by itself.
I’d still buy one! I love the 787-10 the most beautiful variant although I still think the 777-8 will do a great job replacing the 777-300ER & maybe Boeing should even downsize to a 777-7 to replace the 777-200ER truly! 😊
A350-1000 can basically do almost all 777-8 can do at a significantly better trip cost, while 777-9 can carry more than -8 with minimal extra cost. 777-8 as a passenger plane is dead on arrival.
As a humble passenger, I prefer the 777 over the 787. Due to the smaller fuselage diameter, the 787 offers a bewildering amount of opportunities to bump your face against the overhead bins, and, in the case of KLM, the business class seats are horrible, as opposed to those in the 777.
If redesigning a relatively isolated mechanical system like the landing gear is too complex a challenge for Boeing, it really does make me wonder about their design processes.
That's likely not the issue, but rather the maximum weight pavements can be subjected to for the given number of tires. Pavements fail in fatigue the same as metal does, so there are limits imposed.
I find it funny why an airplane manufacturer in a duopoly needs a marketing department. Like, they don’t need to go on social media or pay billboards, it’s just calling airline executives…assuming they’re not the ones getting called for planes
Adding a moderate amount of range helped the A330ceo sales, I believe the final version of the A330-200 had around 7200nmi still air range, whereas the initial release was closer to 6400nmi, just going by memory here. Similarly the A333 saw more transatlantic action afer it's range/MTOW increases. For the 787-10 getting to 7000nmi in the brochure without major structural changes would be big. You mentioned the wing capacity, but with the longer body it doesn't even have the MTOW to fill the tanks at max weight now. Acccording to my off the cuff calculations, an extra 8.5T (17000lbs) of MTOW will get it there. It would still be 21.5T less than the A359 at this weight, approximately 577,000lbs MTOW for this IGW variant.
While it helps the situation won't be much different. A330-300 is significantly more efficient than both 777-200, A330-200 and A340-300, that despite its shortcomings, it can still undercut them all. Meanwhile 787-10 and A350-900 have very similar trip costs, and the unit cost difference is really down to 787-10's bigger size. Many airlines would prefer the flexibility of A350-900 over the slight efficiency gain with 787-10.
The problem is if they start with a clean sheet, they might end up with an unstable plane that pitches wildly, or door plugs that pop out during flight💗, or wheels that just fall off.
It sounds to me like the markets segment for a -10 sized variant, that can fly the longer ranges is relatively tiny. And the Boeing proposals to create a longer range version via the basic changes mentioned by Hulst, would address most of that need. There simply isn't a worthwhile addressable market to justify a major revision to the aircraft.
They have way too much on their plate, 777x certification, 737max10 and max 7 certification, a possible 797 MoM, production issues with 787, and now 737 max quality/government/inspection issues. The last thing they need to do is another half ass job in addition to all their current half ass-ery
It's kind of shameful that they think they can call it a "new plane" when in fact it shares 80% of the same parts as the older models. That doesn't make it a new plane. That makes it a copy and what we know about copies is they're usually worse than the original.
in theory, two planes with equal passenger floor space/capacity differing in max range, the one with lower range should also have lower empty weight. even though it cannot handle the longer route, a lower weight should mean better economics for intermediate range. but in actuality, the 787-10 and A350-900 have similar OEW. so perhaps Boeing goofed on 787-10. Boeing also goofed on 777-X because the metal fuselage is heavier than the all composite 350. Meaning it is neither optimized for ultra long range or best intermediate fuel economy.
They went with metal because it's too expensive to make a body of that size all composite. As a plane being marketed for a 747 replacement, I doubt they could make it work. Efficiency for its size it would've been, but airlines like cheaper aircraft.
787-10 of Saudia is a great success serving medium range destination from Jeddah to far east to Africa,it carries more passenger at lesser fuel cost than any plane.
Boeing is already busy at least for next 5 years delivering current dreamliner orders and in terms of manufacturing for boeing, it doesn't matter whether is -9 or -10
AIR BUS IS THAT FRIEND WHO IS ALWAYS PREPARED FOR THE EXAM, BOEING IS THAT FRIEND WHO ALWAYS TRIES TO CATCH UP AT THE LAST MINUTE , SOMETIMES DOES A GREAT JOB THUMBS UP THOUGH
