Qatar wants to be first 787-10 customer; praises EU for ‘face-saving’ freeze of ETS

Akbar Al-Baker, the CEO of Qatar Airways, said he wants to be the first customer for the Boeing 787-10. He has some competition for this status.

Boeing is talking with customers now for the new sub-type, which is expected to get the Board go-ahead this month. Air Lease Corp., British Airways and Singapore Airlines have widely been identified as likely launch customers in market talk.

Also at the delivery ceremony for Qatar’s first 787-8, Al-Baker praised the European Union for freezing plans to impose its carbon trading scheme called ETS. He termed the move “face-saving,” noting that several countries ordered their airlines to refuse payment, led by France China.

“This was a very wise decision,” Al-Baker said.

31 Comments on “Qatar wants to be first 787-10 customer; praises EU for ‘face-saving’ freeze of ETS

  1. The B787-10x, if AspireAviations numbers are to believed (and I’m not doubting them), will be a phenomenal plane. It can cover the entire A333 market and 95% B77E market. The A359XWB will be a phenomenal plane as well-as evidence by its orders, but the B787-10X will “rule the roost” in this particular range/seat segment. The A359XWB will also offer more pax/range/payload than the B787-10X.

    I expect to see a lot of B787-10X orders from a lot of different carriers.

  2. Did I read that correctly? The French gov’t has ordered its airlines to withhold payment of ETS fees?? I would think France would be amongst those EU countries that insist upon compliance?!

  3. We shall have to see what will give the engines for the B787-10 !
    And the good “Handling” of a doble stetch airplane !
    But sure the B787-10 is going to be very attractive aircraft !

    Unless Airbus is able to churn out quickly a A350-1000 (Or a little more) at lower MTOW / MWE / weight Airplane , under 7000 Nm range (Think 20-30 tons out, more or less)
    Same Wing, 84 000 lbs engines, and a little more pax that the 787-10 !

    Time will tell !
    Airbus may not be sitting on it’s hands !

      • It’s called Trent TEN, 78,000 lbs, SFC improved 2% versus Package C, finally meeting the original spec, but not before 2016.

  4. KDX125 :
    It’s called Trent TEN, 78,000 lbs, SFC improved 2% versus Package C, finally meeting the original spec, but not before 2016.

    Easily In time for the B787-10X..:-)

  5. The Trent “Ten” OK, I see this Engine !

    As usual, they may (RR) try to “Download” up to 50 % of the bonanza from the ultimate engine (May be the TXWB from the A351) in this case !
    I doubt they can put the twin stage of the IPT turbine inside an advanced T1000
    Timeframe speaking … the retrofit of the TXWB new tech, may be not so evident, depending where the cut off is done !

    Interesting, but now I don’t know what will this “Ten” really give, and we are just waiting for the GE answer !
    Sure everybody will “Endly make it”

    I just think, Boeing may be more prudent, in their Mktg/Announcments, up the moment they freeze the design, at least, and deliver a very formal projects to the motorist’s, to get the proper answer in a requested time frame !

    Refering to the up and downs of the A351 design, everybody may understand the importance of a frozen design, for the motorist’s future task !

  6. jacobin777 :
    The B787-10x, if AspireAviations numbers are to believed (and I’m not doubting them), will be a phenomenal plane. It can cover the entire A333 market and 95% B77E market. The A359XWB will be a phenomenal plane as well-as evidence by its orders, but the B787-10X will “rule the roost” in this particular range/seat segment. The A359XWB will also offer more pax/range/payload than the B787-10X.
    I expect to see a lot of B787-10X orders from a lot of different carriers.

    Correction: According to A.net’sStitch:

    “The cabin of the 787-10 will be about two meters longer, so it should hold another 18 passengers. It should also offer around six more LD3 positions (42 vs. 36).”

    AspireAvation.com has also stated the B787-10X will have more pax than the A359XWB (doesn’t mention anything about cargo however).

  7. I think nine abreast on the 787 won’t be acceptable for all airlines on all flights. Premium carrier doing flights longer then 6-7 hours and operating 9 abreast 777, 10 abreast A380s or 8 abreast A330/340 might find their product inconsistent/ unpredictable for passengers and go for 8 abreast. The extra lenght of the 787-10 is beneficial for for CASM in that situation.

    More over in practice a full loaded 787-10 (close to MTOW, not passengers only) operating under not ideal real conditions will top out around 5000NM’s. Very suitable for Transatlantic, Intra Asia, Transcon, Leisure etc. Not for flights from Europe or the US to Asia. It can fly those routes without cargo, that’s not realistic.

    Probably why Cathay and Singapore selected the bigger A350s to replace 777s in recent months.

    • I think very few airlines find 17.2″ unacceptable for seat width. The few who cant accept it have other options. I think the 787-10 will be a very popular model for many airlines. And it will be on a mature production line compared to the A350 at that time. I bet Boeing will be able to produce more 787-10 than Airbus will be able to churn out their competitor.

      • The 17.2″ you mention is from the Boeing spec. However the news releases from Qatar Airways and LAN stated that
        their 787 nine-abreast seats were actually 16.8 – 16.9″ wide between armrests.

        It might not sound like a lot of difference but when there are charter carriers flying seats at 16.4″ between armrests, clearly a premium carrier will have to compromise comfort for capacity to take the 9 abreast option on 787.

        This is probably one of the reasons SQ announced their 787s will go to Scoot.

  8. Yeah 9 across is certainly a deal braker..It could have worked but it was only 17″…nah cant have that!

  9. The internal dimensions of the two aircraft are 5.49m (787) and 5.61m (A350). If we divide those dimensions by 11 (9 seats + 2 aisles) you end up with 0.51m (A350) and 0.499m (787)
    Lets just call that 0.5m. So we have a real difference of 0.01m (one centimeter or 13/32 of an inch) between the two.

    So, I must ask the question. What are you going to do with your EXTRA 1 centimeter of space? Install a new swimming pool… add an addition to the house?? ;)

    On a side note, so far 2/3 of the 787 customers are planning on 9 abreast seating.

    • The minimum aisle with is 20 inches acc to FAR (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-815-FAR.shtml), at 20 inches above floor level (which I think is the relevant height).

      This equals to 0.508 m. The 787 max seat width will be a little smaller than what you write: (5490 – 2×508)/9 = 497.1 mm. For the A350 the max seat width is: (5610 – 2×580)/9 = 510.4 mm.

      The difference is 510.4 – 497.1 = 13.3 mm or little over half an inch. Plenty of space for a swimming pool or a tennis court.

      • Airbus promotes up to 18.0″ between armrests on A350. You’re gonna have 1″ (2 1/2 cm) difference compared to the 787 at 9 abreast. This is why airline people I have heard call the 787 an 8.5 abreast aircraft.

  10. 8 Abreast on the 787 would be nice for longer flights, just like 7 abreast on the 767, 9 abreast on the 777 and 10 abreast on the A380.

    Reminds of a memorable discussion yrs ago on the topic. The old Randy had those nice drawings to make his point (miss them) to show the 787 cabin was more comfortable then the A350 mk1, both at 9 abreast (smart .ss ;). I asked someone to take the bodybuilder from his drawing and copy it 9 abreast on that 787 cross section. Very insightful.. Randy was watching the blog and responded via his Boeing blog. Good old times I guess ;)

    http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2698259/#5

  11. mneja :
    The minimum aisle with is 20 inches acc to FAR (http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part25-815-FAR.shtml), at 20 inches above floor level (which I think is the relevant height).
    This equals to 0.508 m. The 787 max seat width will be a little smaller than what you write: (5490 – 2×508)/9 = 497.1 mm. For the A350 the max seat width is: (5610 – 2×580)/9 = 510.4 mm.
    The difference is 510.4 – 497.1 = 13.3 mm or little over half an inch. Plenty of space for a swimming pool or a tennis court.

    Not true. “The minimum aisle with is 20 inches” 1st: This is a “Twin” aisle aircraft.

    According to the 787 ACAP, July 2012 (see link below)

    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787sec2.pdf

    In section – 2.4.1 INTERIOR ARRANGEMENTS – TYPICAL MODEL 787-8, 787-9

    Boeing is showing 9 Abreast seating @ = 3 X 3 @ 59.6″ (1.51m) (outside of armrest to outside of armrest).

    “PLUS” 2 X 18″ (.46m) aisle.

    So here we go… OK?

    1.51m X 3 = 4.53m (all 9 seats armrest to armrest) + .46m X 2 aisle = .92m

    4.53m + .92m = 5.45m

    Which seems to fit just fine in the 5.49m internal dimensions of the 787!

    Not so tight after all… Yes??

  12. The A350 cabin width is 5.2 inches wider than that of the 787 which leads to these seating configurations:

    9 x 17.7 inch wide seats and two 18.35″ wide aisles on the A350 vs. 9 x 17.2 inch wide seats and two 18″ wide aisles on the 787; same 2″ wide armrests on both.

    In comparison the A330 has 8 x 17.75 inch wide seats and two 19 inch wide aisles and 12 2 inch wide armrests ( 2-2+2-2 configuration). Removing the extra armrest leads to 8 x18 inch wide seats. The A350 can be fitted out with 18 inch wide seats at nine abreast if the aisle width is reduced to 17 inches, which btw, is the standard aisle width on the 777 at 10 abreast.

    • Seems like the market voted for 9 across 787 cabins, that is what counts. Airlines are in it to make money, what fat people whine about is secondary to them, buy an F-class seat if you´re fat..

      • 9 across ?
        yes, because the originally offered 8 across didn’ t look good enough against the A330.

  13. Uwe :
    9 across ?
    yes, because the originally offered 8 across didn’ t look good enough against the A330.

    But ANA with its 8 across see 21% improvement above 767 and that was its target. Airlines figured 9 across was possible and they went this way in majority, fuel cost is getting annoying for airlines, despite paying no tax on fuel like we who fill our cars do.

    A350 has lost its edge on the 787 as 9 across is acceptable in both. And the 777 has its upper hand on the A350 making 10 across possible. The A350 is wedged between a rock and a hard place, the A358 seeing very little joy and love.

    • “A350 has lost its edge on the 787 as 9 across is acceptable in both. And the 777 has its upper hand on the A350 making 10 across possible. The A350 is wedged between a rock and a hard place, the A358 seeing very little joy and love”

      Again, the 777 will not be able to compete with the A350 without undergoing a hugely expensive makeover and Boeing is seemingly balking at the magnitude of such an undertaking. Perhaps, therefore, you should stop drinking the kool-aid.

    • Can you show me the metrics for these “21% improvements” ?
      Afaik this value has at the time been dropped into the public domain
      without any framing context .
      Most everybody is certainly happy to quote this number,
      but “show me the source Luke!”

    • In the 787 and A350 there are at 70-80 middle seats in economy class. Having that inch, more importantly your 2 closest neighbours also having that extra inch makes a difference on 7 hour+ flights with limited legroom. It will probably take 40 years for Boeing to admit that, in some memoire..

      • Obviously it makes a difference. The question is whether it makes a decisive difference. There really are two separate but closely related questions there. Does it make a decisive difference for airlines buying and deploying the aircraft, and does it make a decisive difference for the airlines’ potential customers (and I suppose to your point in other posts, as part of that, for what length of flight might it become decisive).

        Luckily for all of us, Boeing’s web of deception will soon be torn asunder — at least on the first question — when we see if airlines really are willing to buy the -10. That will also be an indication of what some airlines think the answer is to the second question.

  14. We are trained to think about comfort as only a function of seat pitch. This is quite engrained. But thinking this way is taking a 2-dimensional solution to a 3-dimensional problem (impact of space constraints on human physiology).

    When you think about it like this, the value of with becomes obvious. Legs placed diagonally across the seat pan will gain 1/2″ of legroom from each additional 1″ of seat width (basic trigonometry).

    Also, to relieve discomfort from feeling pressure on your backside during long periods of sitting, people tend to wiggle from side to side, for which they obviously need width.

  15. Matt B :
    Obviously it makes a difference. The question is whether it makes a decisive difference. There really are two separate but closely related questions there. Does it make a decisive difference for airlines buying and deploying the aircraft, and does it make a decisive difference for the airlines’ potential customers (and I suppose to your point in ojther posts, as part of that, for what length of flight might it become decisive).
    Luckily for all of us, Boeing’s web of deception will soon be torn asunder — at least on the first question — when we see if airlines really are willing to buy the -10. That will also be an indication of what some airlines think the answer is to the second question.

    The A350 is offered 10 abreast too. I wonder how that will be received..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>