Why The Boeing 787-10 Isn’t As Popular As The -8 And -9 

The 787-10 will become more popular as more 777-200ERs reach retirement age and its economics become even more clear. Great aircraft for it’s designed application.

Is it just me or is 1/3rd of the audio is music

The -10 was made for routes like Trans Atlantic, Inter Asia, and Europe to Asia. If you look at KLM for example the published range is the same as the 777-200. So KLM has being using it as a direct replacement in it system.

why does the audio just change to a guitar with no narration at 2:20

There is a loss of voice over between 2:22-3:51 where a guitar solo is heard instead.

Merry Christmas to the other side of the world everyone

2:18 wth!?!?

I LOVE SEEING A -10 ON A GATE... ESP W UNITED'S NEW LIVERY

2:19 whatever the hell happened there

It's not exactly an undersold aircraft. I would be tempted to say it's actually more popular than 787-8. If -9 came earlier than -8 it would have sold more than 1500 and -8 would have sold lesser than 300. With the replacement of 777-200 & 200ERs and some 300s coming up. I would say it's will get it's way into mainstream and get more popular. But it's still upto Boeing, with the quality issues resolved this would go long way than 200s, literally and metaphorically.

Merrry Christmas Everyone! The 787-10 Is Acctually My Favourite Out Of The -9 And -8! I Luckily Flew On It With United From Dublin To Newark In January Right Before The Pandemic Started! Great Video!

Merry Christmas to the entire simple flying team who make these amazing videos possible

What's about that music at 2:20?

Let’s not forget the 787-10 is in direct competition with the A350-900, a very similar aircraft in term of seating capacity and fuel efficiency that came before the 787-10, and with a longer range.

It overlaps the low end of the triple-7 in seating capacity.

It’s important to note the A350-1000 (which has had less deliveries than the 787-10) has an even lower backlog. Perhaps a video could be done for it too as I would that interesting

Merry Christmas to Simple Flying and everyone

As the video suggests... just wait for the 772's to get a little older and in need of replacing. Common cockpit commonality with existing 787 operators, plus all the other efficiencies will make the 787-10 a hot one to buy/lease! It's a long game for Boeing IMO.

I signed up ur newsletter it’s awesome stuff especially the quality is beyond awesome thx I’m becoming an aviation enthusiast

You mentioned at the end of the video a possibility I was going to point out, and that is the 787-10 could in time replace the ageing B777-200 while competing directly with rival aircrafts in the same category and passenger capacity. If Boeing"s reason for building the dash 10 was this, I think its a very brilliant strategy .

Nothing can beat the Boeing 747. The Queen Of The Skies.

I feel like the 787-10 is designed to fill a very different role versus the 787-8 and 787-9. While the 787-8 and 787-9 are usually deployed on long-haul routes, including many of the longest nonstop flights in the world, the 787-10 is clearly optimised for regional, short to medium range flights. As of 2023, most of the 787-10s in service are in East Asia, operating regional flights in the Asia-Pacific. It's basically the perfect replacement for the older Boeing 777 variants and potentially the Airbus A330 as well.

Merry Christmas ⛄⛄⛄⛄ to all..... Great video Loved it much ❤️

It will get popular in the next few years I think . Nice Vid , Liked

2:20 At this time stamp, the music suddenly shows up, and I can't hear your voice or the music for some reason.

Merry Christmas world! I think the B787-10 still has a future and judging its popularity in such a short timespan is not fare. How many B787-9 were sold in 3 years? Also, remember the pandemic...airlines are rethinking their business models and when things go back to normal they might consider the 787-10 for shorter range/high capacity routes.

Merry Christmas and happy new year

It’s fascinating how the airlines know what routes they have, how many people they carry, how much freight they carry and the distances they might need to cover in regards to what planes they buy. Ryan air and easyJet’s model of all one make, makes it easy for pilot training, spare parts and across the board knowledge but then say BA with a mixture means if either make is grounded, at least they can continue operations. I’m still to travel in an A350 (I was booked on one for next May in the new suite but BA changed it to an A380) and the 787 10 that BA are having delivered.

That Hawaiian Airlines livery though 👌🏽🤙🏽

For me, the -10 is what the 787 should be. Such a nice airplane.

I agree: The older short 777's and the newer (but few) long-range 767's still work, but will need a replacement before long. This is what it's for.

Merry Christmas! 🌲

I love the look of the Hawai'ian 787

Merry Christmas 🎅

Because of the short range. Air New Zealand purchase 10 I believe 787- 10 with extra fuel tanks for the extended range. Boeing was worried that the 787 would interfere with the 777 Dash nine and 777 Dash eight sales, and this is why they did not add extra fuel tanks to any of the 787‘s. Peoples Forget that the 787 Dash nine flew from Tahiti to Paris that was 9,765 NM with a 130 passengers and without extra fuel tanks So Boeing knows and will not announce the true flight range of the 787.

Well, that was my explanation, the economics. They may have to develop an ER or LR version of it one day to increase the range.

Merry Christmas

Along with all the reasons mentioned in the video, it’s also because of the A350XWB, which was made as a competitor to the 777 series

The Rival Airbus 350XWB-1000 is also longer and has wider cabin too.

aircraft rarely operate on routes near max range. in that case, any extra fuel capacity is dead weight, so the 787-10 will ultimately make sense. For now, airlines are probably just happy to operate fully depreciated 777-200's at higher fuel consumption versus a new 787-10 with depreciate cost though lower fuel. I imagine the 350-1000 will also do well in high density

hey, could u make a vid on the green 747 at Heathrow pls? Merry Christmas to everyone at Simply Flying!

The -10 isn't made in Seattle and only built at the newer Boeing plant in Charleston. The Charleston plant has a higher frequency of issues with completed aircraft and a number of airlines have said they don't want aircraft built at that plant.

like you say in the video (more or less), there is really no point in comparing the total numbers bough, since one has had years more time on the market. You would need to make a graph showing monthly or yearly sales, and compare them both over a similar period of time.

The fact that is solely build at Charleston, where quality control is virtually non-existent, might also be a reason...

Do a comparison between 787-10 and 777-200

Just like the 777-300, the 787-10 won't be popular until a ER version comes by. The "vanilla" -10 came late, thus lost many sales to the -8 and -9 that could be delivered earlier. Eventually the -10 will pickup sales and become the most sold version of the 787.

Merry christmas

There is a story about the engine tech used in the 787 that Airbus didn't know was available and that's why they went with the A380. Sounds like an interesting story

3:32 "...this variant..." Shows a 787-9 from KLM. As you can see at 1:56 which is obviously a recording of the same setting, the letters "HC" are above the windshield and on the nose landing gear door. These letters are the last two letters of its registration. A Dutch registration always begins with "PH-", all Boeing aircraft with KLM begin with a "B" and the last two letters are in those two places I described earlier. Meaning the registration is "PH-BHC" which is a 787-9. The first 787 KLM took delivery of, because the one that was ordered first (the PH-BHA) had a production delay. Trivia: All registrations from KLM have a certain logic to them. The ones beginning with "PH-A.." are Airbusses, beginning with "PH-B.." are Boeings and beginning with "PH-E.." are Embraers. In some cases the registration also describes the model, which is the case with the wide body aircraft where for example a 787-9 has a "PH-BH." registration while a 787-10 has a "PH-BK." registration. But that doesn't apply to the 737 fleet where for example the PH-BXA is a 737-800 and the PH-BXS is a 737-900. TUI made a little joke with the registration of their 787-8's. Because they had the first 787's in the Netherlands and not KLM (obviously because KLM had no interest in the -8), they registered them as: "PH-TFK", "PH-TFL" and "PH-TFM". So the last letters of the registrations made "KLM". Yeah I'll tell it to myself: NERD!

I think you hit the nail on the head. The -10 is too comparable to older 777 in range and capacity so what's then the point of getting it unless you're already planning on moving on from your 777

Nice

Merry Christmas everyone!

range and competetionplays a role so 9 is best 8 is needed for next 8 years if you count a 15 years for normal airplane cycle version

It's all about the range!!

Can you make a video on Air India's bidding

at least that Boeing makes an upgrade to the 787-10 with more range and some details to fix, I think it would be very popular.

The shorter range of the 787-10 has limited its sales. It will be used to replace the 777-200ER on routes up to 6,000 nautical miles in range, and that means longer flights in eastern Asia and transatlantic routes (for now). There are plans for an higher MTOW variant with more fuel capacity that can fly up to 7,200 nautical miles, and then the plane really does become a 777-200ER replacement.

Perfect for high capacity medium-haul flights, which is exactly what Singapore Airlines is intending to use them for, but for many airlines wanting point-to-point long haul flights, the 787-10 doesn't have the range, although 7400 miles is still a lot, LAX to Shanghai, no problem. (I think) Also, I'm sure some airlines are considering buying the -10 to replace older aircraft of similar capacity and performance, but COVID means that seats can't be filled, so they are holding back on their commitment for now.

You forgot to mention that Airbus made an alternative with the A330 neo

Like you said, it's cutting into the triple seven segment.

From 2:22 on voiceover stops and some guitar music takes over in this video.

The original 787 was to fulfill huge pent up demand to replace 767s. Turns out its finances weren't great so Boeing fixed than by selling the 787 with 9 across seating and sales took off, but it still initially replaced pent up demand to replace 767s, just as the 777 was to replace the DC-10/L1011/MD11 aircraft the 787-10 is just filling natural demand. There is no pent up demand for it, and as you mentioned, competes against the 777. Some airlines may prefere to grow their 777 fleet, some prefer to grow then 787 fleet (pilots, spare parts, maintenance facilities etc).

I think the B787-10 was built as the ideal B777-200ER replacement within this decade. But the A350 has a slight advantage with better range and MTOW. But current -200er & 787 operators, like American Airlines, could buy the -10 in the future.

Singapore Airlines had ordered 30 Boeing 787-10 besides the smaller 787-8 and 787-9 to Subsidiary Airlines Scoot Airlines.

Might help understand things better if you add in prices for each plane both new and used. Also comparison prices for Airbus equivalents. Then the popularity or lack of the 787-10 might be more obvious?

Nobody wants to fly empty planes, the A380 has already taught this painful lesson. Shorter ranger meaning less flexibility, with increased passenger capacity that you can no longer guarantee, even during pre-COVID travel. Travel isn't what it was 10 or so years ago, travel destinations are no longer predefined to the typical countries or continents (20 years ago the West: London, Paris, New York, etc; the East: Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sydney, etc) . You can't guarantee to pack a plane to a destination anymore because the world has opened up and a lot of people want to go elsewhere. Hence why the Hub & Spoke model is working mostly for the giant airlines with huge, expansive networks. But since the majority of airlines are not in this category, most can't support it, and will rely on point-to-point where travel capacity will be inconsistent.

It’s the range (which should be corrected soon because in the Air NewZealand deal over a year ago Boeing promised to up the MTOW) and takeoff performance in hot weather. Whilst Boeing lists the takeoff performance as 100 meters shorter than the -9, this is only the case in the optimal conditions. I think another factor is it’s only built at SC unlike the other 2 variants (until next year)

So the narrator just died mid recording or something

The B787-10 can be viewed as the B777-200 replacement as the B777-8 is the B777-200ER/LR replacement. The B787-8, -9 and -10 give airlines that operated an all B787 fleet good 'mix & match' capability to suit passenger and flight operation demands. Air NZ is replacing their B777-200ER's with the B787-10 as the type meets the airline's medium to long haul flight requirements.

I would imagine it's because a lot of airlines who wanted a 777 replacement went for the Airbus A350 (Air France, Alitalia/ITA, Asiana, Delta, JAL, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Thai Airways and probably United in the future). Some airlines (American, Aeromexico, Kenya Airways, Scoot, Royal Brunei) went for the either the 787-9 the 787-8 or both. If you look at other Boeing aircraft, when multiple stretches of an aircraft are offered, it is usually the middle variant which sells the best, in the 767 it was the -300/300ER which sold the most aircraft (followed by the 200/200ER) and with the 737NG it was the -800 (followed by the -700). With the 787 it is the -9 which has sold the most (followed by the -8).

Large passenger aircraft orders have been falling since 2015 .The Airbus A350, A330 have also given more choice and the 787-10 has a far higher price that the 787-8 and -9.

If I could, I would surely buy it...

That’s 1872 orders, not 1882 according to the graph you displayed

Range is the problem. It has nothing to do with the aircraft flying only for a few years. Its main problem is its shorter range comparing it to its brothers in the 787 series.

I think the reason 787-10 isn’t selling is: Shorter range More passengers Higher chance of tail strike

As a RU-vid channel with globnnal viewership, you should mention the distances in miles as well as kms as standard practice.

Can you put it in kilometers too?

So how many hours 787.10 maksimum can fly without non stop?

They need to extend the range... If the have to sacrifice car space for a fuel pod that what would be need to sell it..

The -9 is everyone’s fav due to its long range

I’ve tried it on MSGS 2020, and it can’t even get to Sydney from Lax or San Fransisco, A 787-9 route by United and was by Qantas and American.

Pandemic, A321XRL is the lower plane for the medium market segment, and 787-10 is the high plane (140 passengers more; and 1500nm more) both planes really didn't compete, but the companies don't know now which demand they will have or which routes will be profitable.

The best replacement for a 777-200 or -200ER right now is the 777-200LR. This plane is in the same size category as the 787-10. However, the -200LR has A LOT more range. Meaning that it gives airlines a lot more versatility if they want to fly longer routes that the -10 just can’t fly.

Happy August

Is there a possibility that Boeing might consider an Extended Range variant ?

obviously success will come to the -10 when additional fuel tanks are added to make it the commercial success it deserves

With the 777 relevant still, there’s no need for the 787-10. Like he said, once the 777 is fazed out the 787-10 will slid on in along with the new 777x.

Boeing should Develop the 787-10ER, to directly replace the 777-200ER by adding additional fuel tanks.

The 787-10s should have more wheels on the main landing gears like 777 series. Don't know why in such long body (223' lenth longer than 777-200's ) only equipped with total four wheels on the landing gears.

What happened with the music

I have flown on a Singapore airlines 787-10 once

Was hoping the 787-10 would be the vehicle to revive short range, high demand intra-continental widebody services. It isn't turning out that way 😢

Due to its shorter range, it's not as versatile as 789. This is a niche product for mid-haul routes with high demand. Where an airline can fill all its seats, its cost per seat-mile will be incredible. It is perfect for high demand East Coast-Europe runs (won't necessarily make it from Europe to SFO or LAX with full load), intra-Asia, Australia - Asia routes. Hence we have customers that we have - British Airways probably wants it for LHR-JFK route, Singapore Air - for runs within Asia and to Australia. These airlines have quite a few routes they can use them on. I don't see any other uses - it won't make a transpacific run or a run from Europe to Asia.

I’m hoping that they drop a bbj version

It’s possible that airlines aren’t ordering as many aircraft in the last several years as prior to that time? When the 777er’s retire there should be a big market for the -10.

Nothing is selling right now. It’s well position for the future but no wide bodies are selling right now. Everyone is trying to get out of the current orders let alone ordering new ones

In contrast to the -8 and -9 the -10 isn't the only cleanslate design in its class. The smaller ones are more ore less without competition in the small widebody class. (Putting aside the A330neo which doesn't compare in terms of efficiency ). The -10 on the otherhand has to kind of compete with the A350-900, but doesn't realy because its smaller. Not to mention that the 777 still is an amazing aircraft. Just Like the A330neo, the 787-10 doesn't have to sell in huge amounts. The Point being that every 787-10 sold is a A350-900 not sold and every A330neo sold is a potentiol 787-8/9 less in the books.

Glad my countries flag carrier operates the 787-9 and the 787-10! Greetings from Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦

Whatis a 'skinny' route?

If the 787-8 is shorter and lighter. Why doesn't it have the longest range?