Why did Emirates choose Boeing’s 787-10?

By Bjorn Fehrm

November 15, 2017, © Leeham Co.: Emirates Airlines (Emirates) has finally decided which aircraft shall complement their long-range Boeing 777 and Airbus A380. The decision coming at this year’s Dubai Air Show was more surprising than the choice, Boeing’s 787-10.

We have already written about the Emirates selection. Now we go through in more detail, why the choice should surprise no-one.

Boeing’s 787-10 compared to Airbus’ A350-900

Many write that the choice was about a medium-range aircraft versus a long-range model. This is part of the answer but it’s not the whole answer. The full answer is more involved. It’s equally about a more tightly packaged aircraft versus a more spacious one.

We will go through the key differences that decided which aircraft was the most suitable for Emirates need. In a second article tomorrow, we will quantify each difference and show how key choices for the aircraft series, many which had little to do with medium versus long range, finally add up to the differences in performance and economics that swung the choice.


At the base for the difference between the aircraft stands the choice of fuselage cross section. The fuselage cross-section decides the width of the cabin, but it also sets the weight and drag of the fuselage.

The weight of an airliner’s fuselage is dictated by the outer surface area of the fuselage. The reason is aircraft fuselages are “stressed skin” constructions since World War 2. “Stressed skin” construction means the fuselage skin carries the loads, stiffened to not buckle by vertical frames and horizontal longerons (the longitudinal profiles attached to the skin, also called stringers).


Aircraft certification rules result in, fuselages designed with the same technology and the same dimensions, end up weighing the same.

This means: more fuselage surface area, more weight.

If we now return to the 787-10 compared with the A350-900, we have a difference in fuselage dimensions. The 787-fuselage width is 5.77m with 5.97m height. The A350 fuselage has the dimensions 5.96m wide and 6.09m high.

This means the surface area of the 787 fuselage is 2.5% less for each unit length of the fuselage. One would think it would stay with this difference if both fuselages are of equal cabin length. It doesn’t.

If your fuselage diameter is larger, your nose and tail areas grow. For aerodynamic reasons you only taper your nose and tail at a certain rate. Larger diameter, therefore, means longer nose and tail. And this means more fuselage surface area. Airbus is now proposing to use the A350’s longer tail to house further cabin items.


Now onto the drag of the fuselage. A larger diameter fuselage has a higher drag. It’s not the drag that comes first to mind, the frontal area or pressure drag (which is insignificant for a modern airliner).

The dominant drag of an airliner at cruise is skin friction drag. Skin friction drag comes from the air rubbing the aircraft’s skin. So, more fuselage skin, more drag.

Observe that we have not yet talked about medium or long range. We just discuss the consequences of the A350 cabin being wider and therefore more comfortable for economy passengers. It results in differences, which are significant.

The rest of the aircraft

We now continue with the other components of the aircraft. If your fuselage weighs more, you need a larger wing and stronger engines for the same operational performance. A larger wing and engines, in turn, demands larger tail surfaces (with the same length fuselage).

The end effect is, the aircraft with the more spacious fuselage will, for the same passenger capacity, have a higher empty weight and higher drag.

This is true when everything else is equal. One could argue it’s not between the 787 and A350.

If we exclude the range difference, I would argue things are equal. The 787 and A350 are very similar in their build techniques.

Over my years of analyzing aircraft, I can find no difference between aircraft because one uses barrel based carbon composite fuselage sections and the other panel based sections.

And there seems to be a minimal operational difference between the more electrical system architecture of the 787 versus the conventional system architecture of the A350.

The builds of the wings are also similar. Both have high aspect ratio composite wings (their aspect ratios are within 1% of each other) with wing shape tailoring at cruise via movable spoilers/flaps. And both employ Fly-By-Wire load alleviation.

The differences from the fuselage packaging are by a wide margin more important than the differences in composite build or other techniques for the aircraft.

Medium range versus Long range

Up to this point, we have not discussed the consequences of designing an aircraft for medium range (we call 6,400nm medium range in this discussion) and another long range.

The difference is, the longer-range aircraft needs to take off with more fuel on board. So, if the aircraft carry the same payload, we have a higher empty weight (to hold the heavier fuel load) and higher Take-Off Weight (TOW, = empty weight + payload + fuel).

To get the higher TOW in the air on the same field length, the longer-range aircraft needs a larger wing and stronger engines.

In summary, the 8,000nm A350 has a larger fuselage, wing and engines. This all creates higher drag and therefore fuel burn when flying the same payload over a route.

It comes partly from the A350 being a longer range aircraft, but also from the A350 being less densely packaged.

Economic consequences

The consequences of a heavier and larger aircraft are not only a higher fuel burn.

Fuel was historically the dominant cost, the most important one when choosing aircraft. It’s still an important factor, but the importance is now shared with equal size crew and fee costs (fees paid to countries and airports for their air transport services).

Crew cost differences between aircraft like the 787 and A350 at equal size cabins, is dominated by the flight crew costs. For aircraft with equal capacity, maximum weight and range, flight crew costs are the same within an airline. If an aircraft type is more capable in any of these capacities, it means the flight crew is paid a higher wage.

Airport and airway use fees are based on the size of the aircraft. The parameter used to determine aircraft size is the Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW). A larger and longer-range aircraft will cost more in fees, as its MTOW will be higher.

The final part of the Cash Operational Costs (COC, meaning we exclude the capital costs of the aircraft) is the maintenance costs. Both the 787 and A350 are modern composite aircraft. Their airframe maintenance programs, and therefore costs, are similar.

The difference in aircraft size and capabilities means different size engines. The 787-10 engine Take-Off thrust is 76klbf versus 84klbf for the A350. The engine mass of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB on the A350 is 2.3t higher than the Trent 1000 for the 787. Higher thrust and larger engines mean higher engine maintenance costs.


Emirates President Tim Clark said this week: “The Boeing 787-10 aircraft is the best choice for Emirates, it’s a good eight-hour aircraft.

An eight-hour mission has a flying distance of 3,800nm. This is well below the advertised maximum range of the 787-10 (6,400nm) and certainly below the 8,000nm of the A350-900. The -900 can be “paper de-rated” to get the MTOW the same as the 787-10. But then the range is below the 787-10, at 5,900nm.

The costs being reduced are the flight crew costs, the fees and the engine maintenance costs (due to lower stress from lighter take-offs). But the fuel burn differences don’t change.

If Emirates are looking for the best eight-hour aircraft, the Boeing 787-10 is the best choice.

153 Comments on “Why did Emirates choose Boeing’s 787-10?

  1. Bjørn, how much has a A350-900 to be stretched to get the same effective range as the 787-10 keeping the same 280t MTOW? And how approximately would the economics compare then?

  2. I think what is key is the 787 can operate at most regional airports and will be a good driver for developing new markets to feed the Dubai hub. Its probably got much better economics and Emirates needed to get into the queue to obtain them in a reasonable time frame. Might also be a bit of showmanship going on to grab headlines as i think most will be the dash 9 as im not convinced the largest version will be able to operate in the height of the summer.

  3. Thanks Bjorn, the 787-10 will definitely suite EK’s purposes, the 359 is optimized for longer ranges. As you know I am a paper aeroplane builder and just wondered how the following “variant” will stack-up against the 787-10 in future. It should have better seat mile cost than the 359 and lower sector cost than the 35K.

    5 Panel (3.2m stretch), approximately 25+ pax (245-250),
    Keep OEW weight close as possible to the 359’s “base” weight of 140T,
    MTOW for 6500-7000Nm range (~265T?),
    New winglets and wing twist,
    XWB-EP (79Klb?) engines.

    • Added 5T for stretch on OEW, add 3T for pax, that is 8T. For an MTOW of 165T that is 15T + 8T = 23T less fuel than a 280T 359.

      Assuming 6T/Hour fuel burn at 450 knots it will have 1800Nm less range than that the 359 with published ranges between 8100-9700 (Avrg 8900Nm) resulting in a range not less than that of the 78J’s.

      These are matchbox calc’s but shows that you should have an aircraft that could be compete with the 787-10 and form part of an 350 airline’s fleet medium haul requirements that operates longer haul 359’s and/or 35K’s.

    • This to my mind is less about ability and more about a knife in Airbus. Clark cancelled the A350 long before any reliable data was available on the 787-10.
      Clark wanted to show Airbus his power and muscle and the need for them to produce an A380 with impossible requirements and delivered yesterday-the buying of the 787-10 decision was done 3 years ago! He’s announced it at Dubai to further humiliate Airbus. Next,already set in his mind,is an order for the 777x and the cancellation of any outstanding A380’s. Clarks aim all along has been to try and screw Boeing on price as hard as he can and as every 787 is produced at a loss he can be highly satisfied. Airbus need to stop production of the A380 now, before Clark does!

      • Further to the above,the cynic in me asks how much did Boeing promise to get Clark to cancel all those A350’s? I dont believe it always comes down to the ability of an aircraft,to many fixes in the past prove that.

      • What are you talking about ? Emirates has announced orders for 150 777X back in 2013- it was the launch customer ! They still have over 150 777-300s flying right now out of 208 ordered.

  4. Good reading and the 787-10 choice makes sense. Same reason SIA bought those for “regional” Asian routes.

    • @Joe:
      “Good reading and the 787-10 choice makes sense. Same reason SIA bought those for “regional” Asian routes.”
      SQ hv special insights into the trade-off as they had essentially gone thru the same analysis but in real op scenario of what Bjorn described in his story. In a nutshell:
      1. About 20yrs ago, SQ had a regional widebody competition @ around 300seats gauge like EK has today.
      2. They had 2 choices between a longhaul design(i.e. 772ER) vs a medium-haul(i.e. 333) for that competition.
      3. Unlike EK today, they picked the de-rated longhaul design @ the end for a variety of reasons and started deploying de-rated 772ER all across Asia regional routes.
      4. By around 2005~06 and shortly before they receive 1st batch of leased 333, SQ started to realize there’s a significant diff in op cost de-rated 772ER vs 333 which was subsequently confirmed when 333 was inducted and flew side-by-side with de-rated 772ER on similar SQ regional routes for a few yrs.
      5. By 2013, SQ knew their nex regional replacement could no longer be just de-rated 359 like they did with 772ER and became the 1st launch customer for 78J.

  5. The cheapest widebody Aircraft for 3,800nm flights is the A330-300 where you also have engine competition. Most likely did Boeing reduce the 787-10 price to A330-300 levels to seal the deal and GE/RR maybe promised rock bottom prices on GEnX/RR Trent 1000- TEN’s but they will get the money back in maintennace fees and spare Engines sales. EK most likley did not want to fly the A330 again

    • This Bjorns territory but but looking at MTOW’s, range and seat capacity I estimate that the 787-10’s seat mile cost would be nearly 10% lower than an 339?

      A theoretical 330-1000’s (~30-35 seat stretched 339), 251MTOW (Range ~6000Nm?) could possibly come close to the 787-10 seat mile economics?

      • You don’t not need the A330-900 for 3800nm flights, the A330-300 with GE/RR/PWA Engines is lighter and cheaper. Only when you start using max payload/range of the different types the 787-10 pulls away from the rest. It comes down to the frequency of long range flights and cabin space needed for those routes. Using the narrow 787-10 for Asian routes might be optimal but for bigger pax you use the 777 or preferrably the A380 for the likes of AMS/CPH/VIE and Berlin Tegel (if allowed to land there with a TG A380). TG could maybe get A380 access to Berlin if ordering 40ea A380’s and a few other German cities.

        • @Claes:
          “Using the narrow 787-10 for Asian routes might be optimal but for bigger pax you use the 777 or preferrably the A380 for the likes of AMS/CPH/VIE and Berlin”
          What do U mean by “bigger pax”? a) Pax traffic volume or b) physical size of a pax?

          a) does not makes sense because EK Asian routes are just as busy or ‘thin’ as EK European routes. That’s why we see multiple daily DXB-BKK/HKG by 380 and only 1x daily DXB-VCE by 77W.

          b) also does not makes sense because 80~90% EK traffic volume(also their fundamental biz model) is about taking a customer, physically large or small, ALL THE WAY fm Europe to Asia or vice versa thru DXB.

          “TG could maybe get A380 access to Berlin if ordering 40ea A380’s”
          Given that TG hv been having trouble to find right routes(partly resolved since last yr) to deploy 380 and their financials are in the toilet, I’m surprised U would entertain the idea of 380 x40 more @ TG even if Airbus offer them free of charge…..

          • I mean physical size of pax. The 787-10 is more narrow than the A350 for the same number of pax per row. Just look at how SQ uses A350 vs Scoot 787’s. EQ uses lots of 777 to India and Pakistan that is better served with 787-10’s or A330ceo’s and they physically fit better into a 787 than a similar load of Dutch travellers.
            EK might get additional traffic rights into Europé and Berlin if they order new A380’s. EK cannot fit that many more aircafts into DBX and, the move to DWC will take time and their present A380’s are getting closer to 12 year retirement age, so there needs to be a reshuffle at DBX and the new 787-s might never see DBX but shuffle pax from India/Pakistan thru DWC to LHR/Birmingham.

    • @Claes:
      “The cheapest widebody Aircraft for 3,800nm flights is the A330-300”
      May be particularly in terms of CapEx. Based on my understanding in terms of op cost, advantages fm lighter OEW of older types(vs latest gen) such as 333 don’t start to show up until range is down to 3,000nm or lower.

      “Boeing reduce the 787-10 price to A330-300 levels to seal the deal”
      3 problems with this speculation:
      1. Mkt price level/lease rate for new built 333 these days has also gone down significantly thx to 339. Best pricing Boeing can offer EK for 78J may be nearing 339 level but no way @ 333 level.
      2. Notice EK never operated 333 despite they had a significant fleet of 332. Why? The mostly likely answer is the similar concern re 78J take-off performance @ MTOW in DXB summer which Tim Clark raised 2yrs ago.
      3. 333 was never invited for this EK competition. In fact, EK hv never even mentioned 339……the minimum performance starting point must hv been de-rated 359 in the Airbus proposal.

      “EK most likley did not want to fly the A330 again”
      332 was good a choice for EK to order 2 decades ago because:
      1. It has enough take-off+payload/range performance for around 8hrs sectors fm DXB…@ least more than 333.
      2. It was large enough as EK’s smallest type and also a natural gauge progression fm EK’s 310 fleet being retired back then.
      3. Nothing else in that size class had a similar op cost per seat +LD3 capability.

      Successor 338 is still maintaining(actually, enhancing) 1. fm the 332 tradition but no longer suitable for EK because:
      2. No longer large enough as the smallest EK type today…let alone 2022. I recall about 10yrs ago when EK was assessing 787 vs 350 1st round, Tim Clark commented minimum gauge for EK will be about 300seats so 789 was a bit too small for EK and 359 won that 1st round.
      3. An alternative exists in that size class with similar or slightly better op cost per seat +LD3 capability.

      • The A330-300 has been improved alot over the years especailly payload/range, hence the present top of the line A330-300 is a different animal from shipments years back.

    • If that was all there was to it why did Airbus bother building the A350 in response to the 787? Just drop the price of the A330.

    • the 330 vs the 787 is like comparing a 65 cadillac with a 2017 MB S550……there is NO comparison. the 330 is old and beat….technology. the 787 is the top of the pyramide…BTW the 350 was designed to go head to head with the 777, not the 787…..and now the 777X will bury it.

  6. Hi Bjorn

    Thanks for the analysis, in a former LNC blog there was a concern expressed by TC (I think) regarding the hot and high performance of the B787-10 in the summer months. Do you know how that issue has been resolved. Thanks

    • I recall that article as well and if I remember it was stated that the 787-10 would not be a perfect fit. What’s changed in this area?

    • Hi Bob,

      I think the solution is Emirates accepts that on hot days the 787-10 will not cover the longer routes. And with longer, I then mean over 5,000nm, which still gives a pretty nice coverage.

      • -10 is not able to reach America from DXB,
        not able to reach South Africa,
        and even Beijing is close, Japan out of range.
        SEA is okay, but except Perth Australia is impossible.

        So it’s just a plane to fly to Europe and Asia?

        • Don’t want to interfere, but will make South Africa easy. 787J not intended for Japan and South America.

          EK may see it as serving thinner medium haul destinations and/or increase frequencies on relatively busy routes. Layovers times at Dubai can often be a pain.

          • They was having the A330 but they retired their A330 in 2015

    • @Sowerbob:
      “Do you know how that issue has been resolved.”
      Not to invade your question for Bjorn but I suspect this is most likely due to better take-off performance @ MTOW than estimated 2yrs ago. When Tim Clark expressed his concern 2yrs ago, there were no actual flight test data for 78J and even its estimates were based on a small fleet of 789 in service back then. Now there are…..things hv moved on as TC said during EK’s 78J announcements.

  7. In short:
    -10 is a stretch,

    A359 isn’t.

    If you can sell the 9abreast Y seat at the same yiels as a much more comfy one in a A359, there’s not much to win if range isn’t needed.

    From a technical perspective, I don’t like the explanation of engine weight and fan diameter.
    You may argue on a same tech level there aren’t big differences, but bigger fan does a lot more then just produce more drag…..
    it isn’t that easy, you blow more mass through, but it might come down to it

    • @Sash:
      “…much more comfy one in a A359..”
      Anyone can tell statements similar to the above is a blatant exaggeration as soon as they take a quick look of the cabin diameter specs of 350 vs 787….

    • Assuming isles are same width, each passenger on 787 would have 21mm [just over 3/4 of an inch] less shoulder room than an A350. It is ridiculous how much this is overblown. Seat pitch is way more important. I would prefer non bleed cabin air over an insignificant width difference

  8. The 787-10 should also become increasingly superior the shorter the distance.

    • Maybe, but it would be difficult.
      Cabin width of the A350: 5.61m
      10 seats each 16.2 inches = 4.12m
      13 armrests each 2 inches = 0.66m
      Then we have just 0.415m left for each aisle. That’s very hard on the limit.

    • @Grubbie:
      “Oh no, 10 abreast A350s are coming.”
      No, that’s history as far as EK is concerned. Airbus apparently did proposed such config to Tim Clark in the campaign against 78J.

      In any case, here is my ‘Bottom 10 grand champion’ list for the least seat width space(regardless of armrest width chosen by specific airline) by various cabin diameters done only with simple math:
      #1: 350 @ 10 abreast=
      221in diameter divided by 10seats+2aisles=18.42in width per unit of space
      #2: 330 @ 9 abreast=
      204in diameter divided by 9seats+2aisles=18.55in width per unit of space
      #3: 767 @ 8 abreast=
      186in diameter divided by 8seats+2aisles=18.6in width per unit of space
      #4: 777 @ 10 abreast=
      230in diameter divided by 10seats+2aisles=19.17in width per unit of space
      #5: 77X @ 10 abreast=
      235in diameter divided by 10seats+2aisles=19.58in width per unit of space
      #6: 787 @ 9 abreast=
      216in diameter divided by 9seats+2aisles=19.64in width per unit of space
      #7: 350 @ 9 abreast=
      221in diameter divided by 9seats+2aisles=20.09in width per unit of space
      #8: 330 @ 8 abreast=
      204in diameter divided by 8seats+2aisles=20.40in width per unit of space
      #9: 767 @ 7 abreast=
      186in diameter divided by 7seats+2aisles=20.67in width per unit of space
      #10: 777 @ 9 abreast=
      230in diameter divided by 9seats+2aisles=20.90in width per unit of space

      I understand the typical legal minimum aisle width is 18in.

  9. The funny thing is: The original plan by Airbus for the A350 was to use the A330 fuselage in combination with new wings, new engines and some composite materials. Compared to the B787 the fuselage of the A330 is smaller and the A330 can also be operated with a 3-3-3 seating (e.g. Air Aisa X, Cebu Pacific). Leading aircraft leasing companies and some airlines rejected this idea and demanded a wider aircraft from Airbus. So Airbus was scraping the first design and presented the A350 XWB (eXtra Wide Body). And now the airlines tell Airbus: Sorry, nice aircraft but because of the wide fuselage it’s not efficient enough.

    • For certain circumstances, like Emirates regional purposes – yes. But no way the A350 MK I aka A330neo++ would have been nearly as sucessfull and versatile as the A350XWB.

      Airbus would be in the middle of depeloping an all new 10-abreast TWIN against the 777X. Instead they have plenty of capacity ATM.

      This aside we see from the A330neo how well “easy” solution (just re-engine) work out. It might not be much less capable as the 787 and not much worse on fuel efficiency. However it just doesen’t pan out and doesen’t sell that much. The 787 is the more modern and capable plan and sales numbers speek for themself.

      • Got my doubts about EK abandoning A350 completely, this is their smallest order in dollars since I don’t know when. I suspect they’ve split the reqirement into short and longer range. It might be a carrit in the current fight over the A380 . The question now is will they pick 787-9s over A359s for longer routes.

    • Yes, 9 abreast are possible in a A330. But anything more than 2-3 hours are very uncomfortable for an average western make.

      I’ve done a short job from Manila to Hong Kong, and especially eating was almost impossible without serious elbow fights. Definitely nothing for mainstream long-haul flying.

  10. I respect the article, but there is one very big assumption: Design and manufacture are equal. So if design and manufacture are equal, the 787-10 will weigh less and have less skin drag than the A350-900. No argument. But design and manufacture must be equal.

    I’m interested in the OWE of the 787-10 as well as many other thing.
    I hope the details will emerge in time.

    I think Emirates wanted a people/cargo truck, priced and delivered accordingly. I don’t think Airbus were willing to meet the price or delivery.

    Given Tim Clarke’s comments, it all got a bit daft. He does want Airbus to do his bidding as the expense of other airlines.

    I’m interested in what American Airlines is going to do. If AA buys the A350 it will signal a fight. A call to arms; the US carriers taking on the Middle Eastern carriers. The A350 is Tim Clarke’s nemesis and he knows it.

    • The OEW of the 787-10 should be in the range of 135 to 136t (standart OEM configuration – 787-9 is about 129t). The A350-900 (batch 3) should be in the 136 to 139t range. So the difference should be more or less 2t – not that much.

      However even with the newest twist from Airbus – extending the pressure fuss about 2,5 feet – will leave a difference of about 1 m internal fuse length. This will add up to about 1 row y or more or less 10 seats difference, e.g. 300 for the A350-900 vs. 310 for the 787-10 as example.

      Based on that trips of 2000-3000 nm will leave about 3-4% CASM advantage and maybe 2% lower trip costs.

      However at trips over 3000 nm the A350-900 will came out on top.

      • Thanks for the info. What I am trying to get to is that both 359 and 35K are optimized for longer ranges and their is potential market for a shorter range (~6500Nm) variant in size between the two.

        The market for such an aircraft could be substantial and be relatively low cost to develop (in aircraft standards) incorporating improvements that is evolving from the 350’s and XWB’s rump up production.

        This aircraft will definitely reduce sales losses to the 787-10 drastically and keep airlines in a 350-family for a wide range of applications.

      • It was Tim Clarke who said the pressure bulkhead would be moved by 2 1/2 ft. Airbus have refused to comment on anything Tim Clarke as said.

        The A350 can be configured for 330 seats without the need to move bulkheads. The 315 seat configuation involves 54 layflat, 80 in business seats, the 787-10, 330 seat configuration involves 32 layflat 85 in business seats. Apples and oranges

        With regard to the OEW of the 787-10 a 7 tonne (129 to 136) increase is possible, but the reduction in range 7635 (787-9) v 6430 (787-10) suggests it is more for the range reduction is at least 14 tonnes of fuel (that is being very, very friendly to the 787). Alternatively the aerodynamics have become sub-optimal.

        An OEW of 136 tonnes for the A350 is about right, 139 tonnes is a heavy cabin (SIA have plush, heavy cabins).

        The range redunction is my interest. 1200nm is massive for 40 passengers. To compare, the proposed A350-1000 stretch (-1100/2000/8000) to add 40 seats increased MTOW by 11 tonnes but decreased range by only 400nm

        • For your guys in the real world out there, how easy/difficult will it be to stretch the 359 by 3.2m (5 panels). Theoretically you can go for a “lite-cabin” if its medium haul optimized.

          With engine choices of the XWB’s79/84’s MTOW could be “set” for a max range of around 6500-(7000Nm).

          Due to the 359’s flexibility in MTOW that for an 359 stretch could be adjusted (up to 280T) for airlines that want to carry more cargo.

          • In other words in the middle of the A350-900 and A350-1000. Take your pick.

            If you want the -900 main landing gear then using the -900 just add a few frames aft of the front doors and in front of the rear doors.

            If you want the -1000 landing gear, then using the -1000 just remove a few frames aft of the front doors and in front of the rear doors.

            In both cases, a couple of billion should do it. Aerospace regulation doesn’t come cheap.

          • Easy enough to do at a bit of a cost for a new model.

            Its the fact you are also adding drag and weight when doing so.

            And how much of a market is there and if you are late to that market and the 787-10 rules it first?

          • The 787-10 market is just taking off I think (it could potentially rocket in the eastern markets). And its not just about that, EK will go for the 789 as part of the package.

            If AB had an 350+ (“350-10”) an airline can go to the 35K for more pax/range and or 359 for more range.

            Think the real action in the wide body market will only start in 5 years time and AB can put them in a good position for that with a single relatively low risk product.

          • It is called “the new -800”. Use the -1000 body, the -900 MLG/ ULR wing and PIP Engines. Cheaper than the -1000 but with lower MTOW and range.

          • Thanks. Market research should be done what pax capacity airlines will be interested in.

            My “feeling” is that something between the 359(ULR) and 35K is maybe required. This will have more options/flexibility in terms of MTOW’s up to 280T. Some airlines may require medium range but more freight, some slightly more range.

            With around 345-350 seats, MTOW 165-280T, XWB79/84’s, range 6000-7500Nm could make an 359Plus (+3.2m) a very sought after aircraft that could proof in 10 years from now to be the best seller.

        • Because “apples and oranges” i explicitely talked about the internal fuse lenght difference, which favours the 787-10 at least about 1 m, probably more (the external lenght are 68.28 m vs. 66.61 m), because nose and tail are typically shorter on the smaller plan.

          With about 1 – 2 m more internal fuse length, the 787-10 will allways have at least one more row of Y seats all else being equal, e.g. same number of business seats etc. That only changes if the pitch is considerably shorter on the A350 and/or you go 10-abreast on the A350].

          All other things could be right, however I doubt the weight gain of the 787-10 beeing a simple stretch is more than 8t. The range reduction comes simply because the wing load gets comperatively high on the 787-10, therefore the aerodanamic efficiency goes south if you go on the MTOW limit of 253t.

          That all means that the 787-10 will be much more efficient than a A350 on a 1000 nm trip with an TOW less than 230t, be more efficient at 2000 nm with about 240t, but already only on par at 3000 nm (nearing MTOW), anything above the A350 ist the much better fit.

          • I don’t argue the difference in length. I do argue moving the bulkhead. It’s daft. Anyway, I’ve said enough.

            Yes, I agree the CASM will converge the shorter the sector. But I’m not sure the 787-10 is better anywhere in the envelope. In other words, I think it still favours the A350-900 on short sectors, but more maginally.

            We will see. SIA will get both, let’s see what they say!

          • “The airline also considered the A350-900, but was not happy with some aspects of the interior configuration. Only in early November Airbus showed a new layout with the rear pressure bulkhead moved aft by 2.5 feet. Clark complained to Airbus that the design should have been on the table earlier because it could have changed the picture completely. But by that time the commitment to Boeing had already been made.”

          • Well TC uncommitted to the A350 AFTER he actually made it.

            IF the A350 mods were enough he could have done the same.

            Seems some fishy statements going around.

        • @philip:
          “The A350 can be configured for 330 seats without the need to move bulkheads.”
          Only if accept fewer J seats than brochure config in return for more Y.

          ” The 315 seat configuation involves 54 layflat, 80 in business seats..”
          Dream on. The 315 seat brochure config contains 48 SKI SLOPE/INCLINED lie flat seat with 60in seat pitch(Such small pitch can only allow ski slope/incline lie flat design very rare these days) in J. Enjoy: http://oi44.tinypic.com/2n8cxlf.jpg

          “the 787-10, 330 seat configuration involves 32 layflat 85 in business seats.”
          Some hv only 75in seat pitch but all are HORIZONTAL FLAT BEDS with direct aisle access. In other words, much tougher load per pax assumption used than Airbus config. See Chapter 2.4.1:

          “Apples and oranges”

    • I think you’re really down “in the weeds” with this line of thought. I’m sure TC’s much more concerned/worried—“big picture”/“view from 35,000’” about oil getting to at least $70/barrel or better! I know his boss is. LOL

      • Or the other way riund, you are so far in the weeds that you can’t see the wood from the trees

  11. So, how much would it cost to shrink or expand the A350s upper lobe? Why didn’t airbus think of the bulkhead trick before? Can Boeing do it as well?

    • Will also be interested in this answer vs a simple 3.2m stretch (5 panels) which will make it ~1.7m longer than the 78J.

      Picked-up that moving the bulkhead could compromise the structural integrity of the design?

      • I was partly thinking about having two upper lobe sizes and two wings for the A330 replacement This modular approach seems superficially quite attractive.

        • If AB goes for a two wing approach the 350-800 could be real competition to the 789 and a smaller winged 359 or slightly stretched 359(+) competing in the 787-10 market.

          Such an 350-family will really be “awesome”.

          • interesting thougt, but it would only work if you also reduce the engines to that of the 787. But theoretically that shouldn’t be the problem, at least the 1000-TEN will be offered. At the end this A350-800 would be really close in weight to the 787-9, which is the plane Airbus should be really worried about ATM.

            Maybe that would have been the better idea than the A330neo (wich would be death by that move), which obviously is one step to short.

      • I’m not sure people understand what moving the bulkhead means. There’s a lot going on behind that bulkhead. If there is some space it is for a good reason. But I don’t think there is space unless Airbus designed it badly

  12. Thank you Bjorn,
    This highlights just how important the design specs that the OEMs commit to at product launch are. Understanding the marketplace and customers needs, then building your plane to fit those needs.
    There are plenty of “what ifs ” or ” if only…” but after it is built, the OEMs have to sell what they have.

    • That a really BIG truth of life and we relish in it. Success is how you engineer/sculpture/adjust around those initial decisions that were totally of page in today’s situation.

      • Airbus did a bang up job on the A320 series. A321 derivative being a real good deal for them.

        So it goes. Yous buys your fuselage and you takes your chances.

        • Me with the AB cap have at least smile today.

          But what you say is true, Boeing must just go for the NMA/MoM with what is today the best decision.

          If I have a Boeing cap on it must be an 757-200 size NSA and/or re-winged 787-8 size 787 based medium range aircraft with ~50KLb ultra-fans?

  13. Hi Bjorn,

    Once again I appreciated your analysis, now about the aerodynamic drag issues of diferent the fuselage configurations. The E-Jets double-bubble design faces aircraft with circular fuselage section. In the lower segment the MRJ chose a circular section of smaller circumference than the 175 E2 but had to make it longer to the luggage compartiment. In the upper segment the CS100 has a wider and shorter fuselage than the 190/195 E2, with pros and cons.

  14. I’m not surprised Boeing got this gig. Airbus changed the spec of the A35X and from then, they lost EK
    What Airbus must do now is fight the next iteration of the 787-10. And that will be 787-10ER. If not? Airbus will be blown out of the water again ala 773ER. It’s going to happen. And back then both EK and SQ bought the 777-300 and the ER version when it came out. History repeating itself? Airbus better crack on with bulkhead move on both the 35J and X.

    • The 787-10ER is apparently in the making, so AB better get cracking. I will forget this bulkhead move, not sure if airlines will like it. Give it a 25-50 seat real stretch (3.2m) while the opportunity is there.

      It could be an aircraft with a range of applications including an 359F and become the biggest seller the end of the day. But don’t faf/pussy foot around, stop worrying about the 339 with 351T MTOW, 380 winglets, get this bird flying.

      Introduce it with the wing mods being tested and XWB-EP’s.

      • Not sure the wing will take an increase in MTOW. Don’t think Airbus are worried!

        • “7810ER” needs a bigger wing and will be longer overall than the 10 because the center section gets longer with the bigger wing. If built it will have a MTOW similar to 359 and stay with 4 wheel main gear. Passenger wise it will be between the 359 and 10 with range of regular 359 (ie. not ULR version).

          Both AB and B are constrained by the real world of costs for new and derivative aircraft and will NOT make most of the ideas put forth by us readers. It’s one thing to think of them and another thing altogether to build, certify and market them.

          • That’s why I say AB in a much better situation here. Simple stretch between the 359 and 350K and you can basically choose a range for optimization with the current wing and XWB78/84 engines between 6000 and 7500Nm.

            Step on those 78J eggs before monsters hatch.

          • Not sure the center section would have to get bigger.

            Longer wing, folding wing tips anyone?

            Could also go a bit wider (A380) at a loss in the AR.

      • The 787 is very limited regarding further growth, because most of the design reserve (main landing gear / wing structure) was eaten up in the development process by considerable weight-gains. Especially the MLG and the wings can’t take much more than the MTOW of 253t (note it’s the same for the 787-9/10). Without a redesign – including weight gain – I’d expect it will never reach 260t.

        However incremental range will come from engine PIP’s over time, but that is limedet and takes time. By (undersired) designing the 787 at it’s limit Boeing got a very efficient plane at the end, while Airbus often have large reserves – the A330 beeing most prominient (but with A340 genes), but even the A380 is designed (MLG / wing) not only for a -900 but -1000 variant, which will probably never been build. The same occurs at the A350, which has already seen MTOW bumps early in it’s life.

        • Sounds like the 773ER. Didn’t hurt it none last time I checked. The XWB need tweaks IMO, not an expensive stretch. This will keep it honest to the Dreamliner.

          At least Airbus will make money on the XWB. A consolation I guess

        • Agreed. The only thing I would add is incremental weight reduction and aerodynamic refinements. Boeing doesn’t offer much insight, but Airbus do. Airbus do like to chip away. They did it with the A330 and they will continue to do it with the A350. But as you say the big numbers are set.

          • Ummmm, the 787-8 had issues, but the 787-9 came in under.

            Not a lot of commonality between the two.

            The -10 was a simple stretch.

            And if you add more range to the 787-10, then are you not shooting yourself in the Airbus foot?

            TC not happy with the A350-1000 because of too much range, loss of commonality with the 900.

            A330NEO looking at more range.

          • Transworld you didn’t like the F106 as an example. Let’s use the A350. Airbus added a 4% trailing edge extension to the A350-1000. This increased skin drag, but prevented the lift vector from moving significantly further aft. The further aft the lift vector the more induced drag. So Airbus added skin drag to significantly reduce the increase in induced drag.

            The consequence, the A350-1000 carries 40 more passengers than the A350-900 using an additional 6 or 7 tonnes of fuel. Infact the payload range/fuel burn graph for the A350-900/-1000 appear to be very close.

            It is this kind of insight that Airbus offers and Boeing don’t. So yes we are told that the 787-9/-10 came within weight but not much else.

          • Thanks Phillip, slowly but surely I am learning.

            But adding only 40 pax for a 7m stretch tells me that something different is going on in the inside.cabin layout?

            If you use the same business/economy seat ratio as in 359 shouldn’t the increase be closer to 50-55 seats?

            For medium-long haul haul applications the 35K’s seating could therefore be around 380 seats (in 359 type layout) which should actually give it very good seat mile costs.

            Currently AB is pushing the 35K as and 8000Nm range aircraft with around 350 seats, which is fine. But, shouldn’t it as well be marketed (ore even more so) as an 380 seat aircraft with ~7000Nm range (310-315T MTOW?) that could generate good belly revenue.

            These should then be a “no-brainer” replacement of the 77w”s and have significant better seat mile costs than the 777-9’s.

            To put it in perspective, 77W MTOW (351T) and 777-9 also 351T. The 40T equates to the equivalent of 400 pax and their luggage or OEW of an 320.

            Good luck to EK on those, oil and Avgas basically for free in Dubai so why bother about weight and fuel burn.

          • Airbus many moons ago made clear it would use cabin innovation to increase PAX. The A330-900 will be first to benefit, for 10+ passengers have been added. Airbus claim 14% improvement for the A330-900 over the A330-300. 12% is engine+aerodynamics, 2% is the increase in passengers. They haven’t moved the bulkhead to add the passengers.

            My understanding is cabin innovation will be introduced to the A350 in 2019. This will increase passenger count to ~ 335 on the A350-900 and ~385 on the A350-1000. Again, they haven’t moved the bulkheads

            At the time, it was said that Boeing would do the same, but increasing the passenger count to ~350 on the 787-10 would further reduce the range by ~300-400nm. Again, Boeing would not have to move bulkheads.

        • The B787-10 will become better and better with derivative Engines, cost/weight reductions and aero fine tuning. It will be the 787MAX and take over 787-9 sales as the 787-9 took over the 787-8. What can Airbus do? A lower cost A330-900RE with reduced MTOW and a weight reduction/optimization program that might include an ALPS update to the Trent7000’s. The other way is to optimize the A330-300 with RR Trent7000/Advance Technology into the Trent700, revised winglets and empty mass reduction. Maybe do both to have several A330 families: ceo/RE, ceo+, neo, RE neo+ stealing sales from the 787-10 all maybe cheaper and quicker to get delivered than the -10.

          • Longer term 359+ (3.2m stretch). Some real matchbox calc’s below.

            A339 stretch (330-1000). An 251T 339 could have a range of around 7200Nm then you could cut ~700/480=8.75 x 0.9T (8T) of fuel for stretch, pax and drag assuming 6T/hour fuel burn.

            So it looks like the 339 could be stretched by around 4-5 rows (30-35pax). This should give an aircraft with 6000-6500Nm range and 325-330 seats using the T7000 equivalent of the 76KLb thrust Trent TEN.

            Technically the 359+ is more plausible and flexible but if you want to keep the 330 assembly line going this could be the aircraft that airlines are looking for in growth on shorter-medium haul higher density routes that want to replace 330-300’s.

            It should be competitive on pricing, airlines from China and India for example could find favor in such an aircraft. Even Delta could look at it for Transatlantic?

            But AB will have to do something, and soon.

  15. Looking at wing areas, 787 – 377 s.m., A350 -442 s.m. So to the degree that area increases drag, maybe the 787 wing is more optimal for the typical flying weights to be seen.

    • The proposed wing for the 777X is even bigger. But Wiki says it will reduce SFC by 7%. Not saying Wiki is wrong, but it is a big ask.

      Thin, high aspect ratio wings are more efficient even though they have a larger surface area and therefore skin drag is greater. They have been known about for decades, but couldn’t be built because Aluminium doesn’t have the properties. Carbon changes that.

      Without the 7% reduction in SFC provided by the wing, the 777X would be nowhere near the A350. As I said a big ask; the carbon will have to be good, very good. Somebody will do it. Why not Boeing!

      • I believe the A330 took more advantage with aluminum than Boeing was doing.

        It would be interesting to get a Bjorn breakdown on why Boeing did not go there earlier.

        Sure on board now but also as noted composites.

        • Given the A330 performance, it is certainly the moved advanced use of aluminium.

          Having said that the 777-300ER is considered to be up there. Particularly the wing. The 7% reduction in SFC is comparative to the 777-300ER

      • @philip:
        “…777X would be nowhere near the A350. As I said a big ask; the carbon will have to be good, very good.”
        My guess is that the 77X wing probably will be and I’m not implying any mysterious design superiority of the Everett team over the Filton team. Not at all. It’s just experience which Boeing bought @ very very high cost thru the 787 program.

        I recall a few yrs ago and still occasionally heard fm Boeing when describing 77X wing as their ‘4th gen composite wing design’. Which are the previous 3 generations given that the design for Boeing’s 1st CFRP wing did not started until 2004 upon 787 program launch? 1st gen is of course experimental and still found within the early prototypes & initial batch of production. 2nd gen I think is the version adapting the early solution(center wingbox redesign which made it heavier than original specs) to the wing-body joint issues and found in most 788s till these days. 3rd gen I think adopted a heavily revised structure which e.g. reduced center wingbox weight of the early solution among other minor aero refinements and found in all 789s and still on 78J.

        It was a long journey for Boeing in terms of CFRP wing design because every gen required ditching the older gen throughout its supply chain. The 4th gen CFRP wing on 77X is the result fm 3 painful lessons learnt earlier.

        • I do hope so for Boeing do need to crack carbon.

          The 787 isn’t very good carbon. The 1200nm reduction in range between the 787-9 and -10 is very excessive for a 40 passenger stretch and can only be explained by weight and aerodynamic issues

          • Both have the same MTOW but the 78J 76Klb engines while the 789 71Klb engines, not sure if there significant fuel burn per hour differences between the two.

            Also, the 78J is 5.5m (~8.8%) longer than the 789.

          • The 787-10 stays out in the envelope much longer because of the increase in OWE and PAX. So the engines are working harder for longer. But the drop off in range is considerable. It could be the engine, but the Trent 1000 TEN is certified to 81k. Perhaps RR are out and GE in?

            As I said elsewhere, we are now being told it is 280 PAX in 3 class configuration. So perhaps they have no intensions of going anywhere near the MTOW of 254 tonnes. If that is the case then we are only talking a few percent. So price and delivery

          • Guess they are playing safe on range for hot days and/or another 5T of fuel could give a couple of hundred NM in range?

            Another possibility is that they are going for a “heavy” interior with some of those snazy new suites.

          • … price and delivery and Tim Clarke’s aversion to the A350 for it does challenge Emirates business model of being the gateway to the east and to the west. Up to 10 hour sectors in either direction, that is all Tim Clarke wants and the OEMs must obey, or else!

          • That is a good summary, how stupid TC would have looked going back to the 350’s? Pardon this expression but like a dog eating its own v…..t.

    • P. S.

      If you are told that surface area always means more drag then don’t believe it. At the basic level there are three kinds of drag, skin drag, form drag and induced drag. You can add wave drag for supersonic flow.

      Very often increasing the surface area helps reduce form drag, induced drag and wave drag at the cost of raising skin drag.

      One of my favorites is the F106 Delta Dart. A big surface area, but it used area ruling to great effect. Went like a bat out of hell even though the engine wasn’t that powerful

        • Area rule applies to Super Sonic, so the relevance here is?

          Not close to expert, I assume the long wing offsets other losses.

          Glider is very slow, somewhere in all that is a speed issue.

          • Transonic snd Supersonic. Above Mach .75. But the point was about improving form drag

          • P. S.

            Gliders do it differently because they don’t carry 300 PAX, 8000nm

    • Note that 50m² or 1/8th more wing and a wider fuselage result in just 2t weight mark up.

      • Thanks Uwe, was looking for this type of info. If you can make that large wing good and work for you with limited weight penalty like AB is busy doing with the 350 wing, “Life is Good”.

        • p.s. There is nothing more beautiful when you are at 40K feet and you look up (high) to the wing-tips of that big 747-400 wings.

  16. Nice discussion. It seems like it should read as a huge cautionary tale for Boeing with the NMA. The difference in operating economics between a twin-aisle NMA and an A322++ (or whatever it is) would likely be much larger than the difference between the marginally-wider A350 and the 787. Yes the NMA would have somewhat longer range, but that only matters for a minority of missions, and unlike in this case the NMA would also be burdened with recovering amortized development costs vs an unencumbered competitor.

    • Boeing engineers are smart enough to know that.

      Somewhere in the calcs is the cost (single aisle low) to build and the numbers to more than break even (787) .

      I also assume the range is more important for an NMA than the single aisles that may do a 500 mile hop, then a 1500 one and another 500 one.

      As we can see, that allows a gap where a C Series can come into play. Never be as big as a 737-800/8, but pretty close in a C500 version and better economics.

      Game of Thrones anyone?

      • Which is why I don’t see them doing a MOM as a stand alone aircraft. Recent talk of a short range WB makes me suspect that the wing and systems will be recycled on a new NB. Not sure how big the market is, bigger than un the days of the original 762, but cheaper than an expensive complete aircraft, remember, it must be cheaper than the A330, any modelo.

        • You can’t move a wing from a wide body longer range to a single aisle.

          Sure you can do some , systems, works well. 787 cockpit is becoming the default.

          Air Conditioning ? No, much smaller on SA

          Gear: No, much smaller on SA

          Engines, no way.

          Tech can be shared, but an awful lot of system are custom.

          • That’s what I am trying to get at, just not expressing myself very well, reducing the MOM to 2000 miles makes it possible to re-use more bits for a 3000 mile NB. Thinking along the lines of 757/767, but not done in parrallel, as BA have said at some point doing both at the same time was a mistake.

  17. Bjorn – I’m not sure why you think there is no penalty for a skin lap. Maybe it isn’t very significant for total weight, but here is the calculation at a detail level:
    1. Lap width must effectively double the skin thickness for the width of two fastener rows plus edge margin to transfer loads from one panel to the next regardless of material.
    2. Skins must be further thickened due to fastener bearing loads/hole knockdowns (worse for composites).
    3. Add the weight of the fasteners (Ti at 2x the density of the composite).
    4. Add the weight of the sealant to fair out the panels.

    This has to be applied to the entire length of all laps. This is not thousands of lbs for a full fuselage, but it is likely in the hundreds of lbs for a full fuselage.

    • The laps are not entirely parasitic, they are increasing stiffness. I’m not sure but I think that there are more longitudinal joints in the 787. As the moulded surface is on the inside, do they fair the outside of a 787?

    • Yes there is some weight for joining together the fuselage panels, I think they are better than the methods used for all AL older fuselages. In addition panels allow the thickness to vary around the fuselage circumference, which you cant do with a carbon fibre one piece barrels.

      • The four-panel concept also provides considerable weight savings, as longer panels require fewer circumferential joints – which are relatively heavy – relying more on lighter longitudinal joints. This weight saving also results from enhanced optimisation of each panel for its application and the use fewer joints overall – which are placed for load and weight optimisation.”

        Seems that swings and roundabouts- longer panels mean fewer heavier circular joints

    • No, works for an A330 but not the cost, wings and engine size for an A350.

    • It is a bit like flying the 777-300ER on regional routes, works but cost more money than doing it in an A330. EK does it alot to India and Pakistan. Still it is valuable for an airline to be able to use the “Heavy Irons” on short big volume and high value routes without occuring too high Aircraft maintenance cost. Especailly if you are on a Power by the hour agreement and margins on the hrs/cycles limit in the contract, then you can cycle the big Aircraft some more and make Money just to stay on the right side of the contract hrs/cycle limit.

      • I think EK are using 777-300s and not ERs on these routes. The one they lost a year or so ago wasn’t an ER. So it appears that they are using a shorter range aircraft.

  18. In my non-technical way I see skin (“wet”) area per pax as one of the key areas. The 787 fairs the best between the 787, 350 and 330 because of its narrow seat 3-3-3 layout and hence smaller skin area per pax.

    OEW obviously important, but with all the wonderful CFRP’s the OEW of the 789 per pax actually heavier per pax as an 339 (both have fairly similar sized wings).

    Would have been interesting to compare the economics of an 339 with an 789 in 8 abreast layout.

    AB’s two aircraft basically gets penalized for offering pax more comfort than the 787?!

  19. When AB builds an A330 replacement they could go down the Boeing “dirty” narrow seat route, seems 17.3″ is on the limit of exception.

    In 2-4-2 it will be more comfortable than the 787’s 3-3-3, basically 2 middle seats vs 3 and 5 armrests vs 6.

    Using CFRP’s and/or Al-Li should result in a lighter and slimmer aircraft, coupled with Ultra-fan engines the tide will swing AB’s way again.

    It will however most likely have seating between 230 and 290 pax emphasizing the need for AB to develop a medium range aircraft between the 359 and 35K based on the 350 fuselage.

  20. It is funny with Emirates. On one leg they will offer you a very pleasant ride with an A380 and on the next leg cram you into a sardine can in a 777 og 787. I only fly Emirates when all my legs are in the A380.

    • Scary to think that an A321 Transatlatic could give you more seat width and legroom than an 787 or densified 777!

    • EK is really two airlines, one for cheap labour being flown from Asia, and who don’t buy their own tickets, or have much choice. The other A380 version carries paying pax from countries we’re wages are better, and so goes with more confortable seating, which is why TC refuses to densify his A380s with 11 across 18 inch seating, which would still be better than his 77Ws, it would reduce his revenue. I think that’s why EK have gotten so big, they are thinking about the different markets, they have been known to configure their 777s with 34 inch pitch for some markets as well.

  21. The plot thickens. Aviation Week are now saying it will be a 280 three class layout. That is well within the A350 and the A330neo

    • As said before heard rumors about 2-4-2 on EK’s 78J’s. Most likely premium economy?

  22. If there is an 787-10ER in the pipeline it should not be forget that those modifications whatever it entails could be applied to an 789ER. So AB should take it into consideration in its overall strategy.

  23. I have done some quick matchbox calc’s on the 350-1000Mk1 that EK wanted and they (me included) were critisized for not developing.

    The start was for an 350-1000 (370 pax) with XWB84, 359 wing, 4 wheel bogeys, 275T. Problem areas;

    After increasing weight of longer fuselage (7m), 45 pax etc fuel capacity is dwindling. With higher fuel burn due to longer fuselage drag not sure if yo will see 6000Nm (on paper, hot airport/s could cut it significantly).

    Due to the heavier frame and more pax MLW will have to be increased, not sure how much the 4 wheel bogeys can take.

    Even if the 359 wing and XWB84’s can lift 280T on the 359, the drag of the longer fuselage will possibly require 5-10% more thrust for the same MTOW?

    Would like to see FlyDubai’s MAX10’s taking of at Dubai on a hot day.

    • ” higher fuel burn due to longer fuselage drag”

      Boeing was able to get the same range from the 787-9 as the shorter -8

      • @dukeofurl:
        “Boeing was able to get the same range from the 787-9 as the shorter -8”
        Actually, more range than 788 per brochure specs all along every revision Boeing hv ever made in specs for 787 family.

        Fm program launch in 2004, Boeing hv never planned 789 as a simple stretch of the 788. The 789 design always hv about 11% higher MTOW than the 788 design and originally, even the 789 wingitp design was supposed to be diff fm /larger than 788’s(sort of like the diff between the current wingtip vs new wingtip now under testing for 350). In a way, 789 is designed as a ‘beefed-up’ variant of the 788 which just happened to hv a longer fuselage. In contrast, the 78J is designed as a simple stretch of the 789 design fm day1 where the normal rule of longer fuselage vs lesser payload/range trade-off applies.

    • Most likely can Airbus borrow from the revised A350-900ULR for Qantas RFQ “Double sunrise” to do the above with A350-1000 body onto the A350-900″Q”ULR Aircraft that is in development with revised landing gears, brakes, engines and tweaked wings and new winglets. Then your A350-1000 370pax +6000nm Aircraft is doable, RR is planning a rework on the Trent-XWB84 anyway that could fit nicely with a 10% thrust increase.

      • If the XWB84 could it go to 90KLb it will be good.

        End of the day AB must find out what airlines want.

        Just feel that a 359+ (345-350 seats) will give AB enormous flexibility from and 359/(ULR) through to a 35K ULR and everything in between

        A 359+ (+3.2m) fuselage could be used for medium haul (6500Nm-265T), LR (7500Nm – 280T) to XLR with 35K wing, 6 wheel bogys, XWB97, (9000+Nm – 315T).

        This platform could be basis for a Freighter, it will also carry 4 (?) more LD3’s than the standard 359.

        AB must have their own priorities/plans, lets see what happens.

        On something different, was wondering what impact a new nose section could have on the 330-Neo sales, psychological/perception, and possibly some fuel savings.

        The 339 is a great looking aircraft, but the nose most likely reminds people of the A300 and does not send “a new message”? Maybe some CAD boffin can do an A339 with 350 nose?

        • The cockpit section is one of the most expensive parts to build, unlikely to be any real changes there for a 339. Passengers dont see it, so airlines arent going to be interested either. Some executive jets have had ‘nose jobs’ to improve streamlining ( Hawker 800 series) and a corporate look ( Gulfstream G150)

  24. And the next details are subscription on the 787-10, sigh.

    I need to be one of those Big Corps that get tax cuts, then I could not only afford it, I could write it off!

  25. All of the mentioned reasons for chosing 787 rather than 350 are not entirely convincing. The logical reason is that 787 is a lot cheaper and Emirates got the lowest possible discount. Besides, there’s a lot of political reasons why the UAE goverment chose Boeing.

    • The 787-10 was supposed to have a max payload problem at the highest temps in Dubai. That no longer is a problem for some reason, I dont think any new improved engine version has been announced ?

  26. EK has lots of perfectly well maintained 777’s that’ll do the bulk of 10 – 12 hours of heavy lifting & their 380’s which do the same but with higher passenger count & the 5 star experience. Over the years the 777’s will be freighters and 380’s junked & the 777-x’s replacing the 777 fleet along with dreamliners doing the 8 hours cycle which form nearly 80% of their operations. Spread out over three dxb airports, Fly dubai, EK and Air Arabia will be not more than 200 – 250 operational aircraft in all, in the near future (2024 onwards) given that UAE has spent atleast 15 – 16 years bringing in the world to Dubai (2002 – 2018). Now it’s about making those people stay in Dubai and sending them all out when their productive life nears an end. You don’t need 100’s of multiple 380’s and 777’s to send back unproductive folks back to their homeland, which the 777’s & hoards of 380’s/330’s did over 15 years.

    So case in point efficient 787 for 80% of your 8 hour operations, 777-x/380 for 12 hour flights and converted old 777’s to Freighter 2025 onwards.

Leave a Reply

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