HOTR: Boeing works on HGW 787-10—and the 787-9

Jan. 5, 2022, © Leeham News: In his first interview since becoming CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Stan Deal told The Seattle Times that development of a High Gross Weight (HGW) version of the 787-10 is underway.

“[Deal] also revealed that Boeing is currently designing a new ‘high gross weight’ version of the largest Dreamliner, the 787-10, bumping up its payload and range to make it more competitive against the Airbus A350-900.”

But LNA learned exclusively that Boeing also is developing an HGW version of the 787-9.

High-level details

Boeing isn’t releasing in-depth technical details of either project yet. It’s known that Boeing committed in 2019 to adding some gross weight and range to the 787-10 to win an order from Air New Zealand. ANZ needs the boost for its US services and demand for cargo. ANZ is replacing its aging 777 fleet.

“As part of the Air New Zealand commitment to purchase eight Boeing 787-10s, Boeing and General Electric are increasing the maximum takeoff weight to add more range,” LNA reported in August 2019. It’s unclear whether the HGW version Deal told The Times about is this model or an even higher HGW. A Boeing spokeswoman said the company doesn’t discuss customer specifications, adding that the company isn’t ready to reveal technical details.

In 2019, LNA predicted Boeing would develop a 787-10ER (Extended Range) version, which is another way of saying High Gross Weight. In a three-part series, LNA’s analysis concluded Boeing could add 1,000nm to the advertised range of 6,430nm. Tim Clark, the president of Emirates Airline, has said the -10’s range is too short. The ANZ enhancements outlined in 2019 add only about 500nm.


Related stories


By LNA’s analysis, a 787-10 with 1,000nm more range is most comparable with the Airbus A350-900.

Here’s what Boeing is sharing today:

787-9 and -10 additional capabilities with Increased Gross Weight

    • More range and payload for both 787-9 and 787-10
    • Complete operational commonality with existing 787 fleet and family, with no additional empty weight or thrust changes

 787-10 comparisons with increased capabilities

    • 777-200ER replacement with the same range, up to 42 extra seats, and more than 25% better fuel per seat
    • Even larger payload advantage over A350-900, along with 19 more seats, 2% lower trip, and 8% lower per-seat cost
    • 60 more seats, more than 20% more cargo, and the same range as the A330-900, with 17% lower operating cost per seat
787-9 HGW

Today’s 787-9 has an advertised range of 7,565nm. This compares with the advertised ranges of 7,200nm, 8,150nm and 8,100nm of the A330-900, A330-800 and A350-900, respectively. The A330-800 is a sales failure—only 15 have been ordered. Boeing doesn’t have to worry about this model. The A330-900, while carrying a few more passengers, already is range-deficient compared with the 787-9—so no worries here in the range battle.

But the A350-900, while larger than the 787-9, today has one hour’s more flying time. And it now is offered in an Xtra Long Range (XLR) version that boosts range to 9,700nm, or 20 hours of flying.

Boeing revealed to LNA the development of the 787-9 HGW Tuesday, the first time anywhere. But as with the specifications of the 787-10 HGW, Boeing declined to provide specifics.

A quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation by LNA suggests a 787-9 HGW could add 750-800nm to its advertised range. Here’s what Boeing released to LNA:

 787-9 comparisons with increased capabilities

    • 20 more seats and 1,000nm more range than A330-900, with a 12% lower operating cost per seat
    • 8% lower trip cost vs. the A350-900, with 400 miles more range

LNA will undertake a detailed analysis in the future.

Progress in recertifying the 737 MAX

After three years, Ethiopia and Indonesia restored the flight certification for the Boeing 737 MAX. Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air resume operations this month and next. These were the victim airlines of the two MAX crashes in 2019 and 2018.

Although both threatened to cancel remaining MAX orders, they haven’t, according to Boeing’s website. Lion Air still shows 237 MAXes in backlog. Ethiopian shows 25 remaining orders through Nov. 30, the most recent information available.

Allegiant orders 737 MAX

It’s a huge win for Boeing: Allegiant Airlines, an exclusive A320ceo family operator, place an order for 50 737 MAXes and an option for 50 more. The order includes a mix of the slow-selling MAX 7 and the high capacity MAX 8-200. The split was not revealed. Deliveries begin in 2023 and continue through 2025. Update: Reuters reports the split is 30 MAX 7s and 20 8-200s.

The MAXes begin deliveries in 2023 and continue through 2025. This is undoubtedly one of the key reasons for the order. Airbus has no slots for the A220 or A320neo to deliver 50 planes in the same period. The A220/320 also lack the commonality of the MAX 7/8-200.

While the MAXes will replace retiring, older Airbuses, Allegiant said it will continue to source used A320s in the market.


What others are saying about Air Wars, The Global Combat Between Airbus and Boeing

Royal Aeronautical Society

Named to the Top 10 List of Aerospace Books for Christmas Choices, 2021

Puget Sound Business Journal

(Seattle area.) No. 1 on the Christmas list of aerospace books for 2021.

BookAuthority

No. 1 on its list of Best New Aerospace eBooks to read in 2022.

Chris Sloan, The Airchive

“A worthy successor to ‘The Sporty Game,’” the 1982 book by John Newhouse, considered at the time to be the definitive book about the competition between Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and the emerging Airbus.

Dan Catchpole, Aviation Writer

Air Wars is a tour de force look behind the curtain of Boeing and Airbus’ global competition and, in part, a biography of Airbus’ head salesman, John Leahy, the man who forced Boeing’s hand to re-engine the 737. Longtime aerospace analyst and journalist Scott Hamilton takes readers through the twists and turns of the decades-long battle between the two companies.

Dan Reed, Aviation Writer

Using John Leahy’s long and monumental career as a vehicle for telling readers about the 51-year battle between Airbus and Boeing is both an interesting and inspired choice by the author.

Air Wars is available in paperback and eBook form at Amazon and in paperbark at Barnes & Noble.

 

116 Comments on “HOTR: Boeing works on HGW 787-10—and the 787-9

  1. As regards tbe HGW versions of tbe 787, is certification foreseen before 2030? 😏

      • Air NZ has moved back the delivery of it’s HGW 787-10 to 2024…covid related.
        HGW versions are relatively easy to develop and flight test.

        • IMU One assumption was that pavement loading would limit MTOW expansions. i.e. just beefing up structure would not suffice.
          ( reason why the A359 has those “splayed feet” bogies.)
          I you look at runway length requirements there are a lot of brake and tyre speed limits coming up
          limiting mostly hot and high.

        • -> ” … are relatively easy to develop and flight test.”

          … in the days when FAA let BA took charge of certification, aren’t they long gone??

          • That also occurred to me.

            9 years on and still no TIA for the 777x.

            How’s the MAX-10 coming aling?

          • @Bryce

            Bloomberg:

            -> “Frustration is the right word,” Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly said of the delays. “It’s a different regulatory environment. A lot of duties that used to be delegated are vested with the FAA, and they are just getting used to that.”

            The FAA doesn’t discuss details of ongoing projects, but it signs off on certification once it’s satisfied standards have been met, the agency said in an emailed statement. Boeing didn’t immediately have a response.

            The Max 7, the smallest version of Boeing’s single-aisle workhorse, is a centerpiece of Southwest’s plans to revamp its fleet with newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft. The carrier is the top customer for Max jets, with 660 on order, including more than 230 Max 7 aircraft. The planes are more fuel efficient than the 737-700s they will replace, and have more seats.

            “We do want the 7 and we wanted it yesterday,” Kelly said.

            Boeing has told the carrier to expect certification “in the next month, or two or three,” Chief Operating Officer Mike Van de Ven said. “In my mind, I’ve got it sometime in the first quarter.”

            Boeing had earlier indicated the plane would be certified by mid-2021, Van de Ven said. A Boeing executive said last month the company was performing certification activities and expected to deliver the first Max 7 jets in 2022.

            Once the plane is certified, it could take another six months of work at Southwest to ready the aircraft for commercial flights, the Southwest executive said, likely pushing the debut to late 2022.

            Link at my post below.

  2. Hello Mr. Hamilton,

    Re:” The order includes a mix of the slow-selling MAX 7 and the high capacity MAX 8-200. The split was not revealed.”

    According to the excerpt below from the Reuters story at the link after the excerpt, the split is 30 737 MAX 7 and 20 737 MAX 8-200.

    “The Las Vegas-based carrier will buy 30 737 MAX 7 aircraft and 20 737 MAX 8-200 aircraft, making it the launch customer for that larger variant in the United States, Chief Financial Officer Greg Anderson told Reuters.”

    https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/allegiant-air-buys-50-new-boeing-737-max-jets-strategy-shift-2022-01-05/

    Re:”The MAXes begin deliveries in 2022 and continue through 2025. ”

    According from the excerpt below from the above referenced Reuters story, deliveries will start in 2023, not 2022.

    “It will take delivery of 10 of the jets in 2023, 24 in 2024, and 16 in 2025, he added in an interview on Wednesday.”

    • AP, had not seen the Reuters split, thanks. Thanks for the typo catch on first delivery.

      • -> “Ethiopian Airlines and Lion Air resume operations this month and next.”

        Garuda, OTOH, decided to phase out its MAX fleet.

        • @Pedro, re: Garuda: If memory serves me, Garuda swapped the MAX 8 for the MAX 10, but I’m going only by memory.

          • Hello Mr. Hamilton,

            Re: ” If memory serves me, Garuda swapped the MAX 8 for the MAX 10, but I’m going only by memory.”

            You memory agrees with the excerpt below from the 4-24-19 Nikkei Asia Review article at the link after the excerpt.

            “TANGERANG, Indonesia — Flag carrier Garuda Indonesia will swap its orders for Boeing’s embattled 737 Max 8s with other aircraft made by the U.S. company.

            The Indonesian airline is the first to formally take this step following two fatal crashes involving the 737 Max 8.

            Garuda informed Boeing of its decision to cancel its orders for 49 of the planes last month. Both companies had been in negotiations on whether to outright cancel, or to replace the order with other Boeing aircraft.

            “We will replace the orders with Boeing’s Max 10s and 787s,” Garuda President Ari Ashkara told the Nikkei Asian Review on Wednesday. He said the value of the new deal will be roughly the same as the Max 8 orders, adding that the airline “believes in Boeing aircraft and its technological capabilities.”

            https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-deals/Garuda-to-switch-737-Max-orders-to-other-Boeing-planes

            Since Indonesia only lifted its MAX grounding several days ago, Garuda has had no choice, until a few days ago, on whether to keep the one MAX it had taken delivery on the ground.

          • @AP

            -> Indonesia’s national flag carrier Garuda said it had no plans to reintroduce the plane to its fleet as it focuses on debt restructuring.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59814571

            -> On the cards is a radical shakeout of Garuda’s fleet. According to data obtained from the September 7 meeting, orders for 92 aircraft will be renegotiated or canceled, and 77 planes from the existing fleet will go.

            An on again off again order for 49 Boeing 737 MAXs is off again, with Garuda planning to renegotiate or cancel. To date, Garuda has only received one MAX. That will go.

            https://www.google.com/amp/s/simpleflying.com/garuda-indonesia-restructuring-plan/amp/

          • Thank you for the links Pedro. I had missed the news that Garuda was undergoing a major restructuring to to try to avoid bankruptcy.

          • Garuda is in a very difficult situation, high debt, high deficit, and running out of gouverment support.

            As far as it looks, they didn’t even take their outstanding A330neos, and Garuda might not even survive as Indonesias flag carrier.

            So I’m not sure if the orders are worth the paper.

    • Below is a link to an SEC 8-K filing by Allegiant on its 737 MAX order. The slideshow included in the filing gives the most detailed explanation I have seen for Allegiant’s rational for its decision, with numerical data on Allegiant’s estimates of various costs for various aircraft options, instead of politician or comparative literature professor type assertions of one thing or another being good or bad without any numerical data to back up the assertions being made.

      https://ir.allegiantair.com/static-files/27ef1691-f09c-48b7-a94c-517a256f640e

      Here are a few items from the slide show that I found of particular interest.

      From a chart comparing advantages and disadvantages of the aircraft that Allegiant considered.

      Assesment Item : 737 MAX / A220-300 / A320neo / A320&19ceo

      Production Outlook: In Production / In Production /In Production / Out of Production

      Delivery Availability: Short-Term / Short -Term / Long-Term / Today

      Flexibility & Up Gauge Optionality: High (4 variants) / Low (uncertain) / Medium (2 variants) / Medium (3 variants)

      Unit Cost (Cost per Seat): Low / Low / Low / Low / Baseline

      Cost per Departure: Low / Low / Low / Low / Baseline

      Reliability: High / High / High / Baseline

      Spare Parts Coverage: High / Low / High / Baseline

      The following items were marked with a red X (disqualifying?)
      A320neo Availability: Long Term
      A220-300 Flexibility and Up Gauge Optionality: Low (uncertain)
      A220-300 Spare Parts Coverage (Low)

      737 MAX Summary
      Benefits: Lowest unit cost for Allegiant, fuel and OPEX reductions in late decade, Highest EBIDTA per aircraft production.
      Cons: Dual Fleet Complexity

      A220-300 Summary
      Benefits: Fuel and OPEX reductions late decade
      Cons: Dual Fleet Complexity

      A320neo Summary
      Benefits: Single fleet type, fuel and OPEX reductions beginning late decade
      Cons: Highest acquisition cost, delivery slots limited to late decade

      A320/19 ceo Summary
      Benefits: Single fleet type, minimize capex near/medium term, attractive used market (currently)
      Cons: Higher maintenance and fuel costs, decreasing reliability, large replacement need in next decade, ESG concerns.

      One slide gives Allegiant’s cost per departure and seat cost per departure estimates for the following aircraft: A319ceo, A320ceo, 737-7 and 737-8200. The number of seats assumed/implied in these calculations can be calculated by dividing cost per departure by seat cost per departure. Listed in order of decreasing seat cost per departure.

      A319 ceo
      Seat cost per departure: $72.20
      Cost per departure: $11,572
      Implied number of seats: $11,572 / $72.20 = 155.96
      Actual Number of Seats: 156

      A320 ceo
      Seat cost per departure: $64.70
      Cost per departure: $12,026
      Implied number of seats: $12,026 / $64.70 = 185.87
      Actual Number of Seats: 177 or 186

      737-7
      Seat cost per departure: $60.70
      Cost per departure: $10,495
      Implied number of seats: $10,495 / $60.70 = 172.90
      Actual Number of Seats: We’ll find out, exit limit for 737-7 is 172.

      737-8-200
      Seat cost per departure: $54.90
      Cost per departure: $10,976
      Implied number of seats: $10,495 / $60.70 = 199.92
      Actual Number of Seats: We’ll find out, exit limit for 737-7 is 210.

      • In my post above there are four typos (that I have found so far) in the blocks of Allegiant’s cost per departure estimates and my number of seats calculations.

        1)Seat cost per departure estimate for A319 ceo should be $74.20 instead of $72.20.
        2 & 3) Cost per departure and seat cost per departure estimates in the “Implied Number of Seats” line for the 737-8-200 are for the 737-7 instead of for the 737-8-200.
        4) I typed 737-7 instead of 737-8-200 in the “Actual Number of Seats” line for the 737-8-200.

        Below are Allegiant’s cost per departure estimates and my number of seats calculations with these typos corrected.

        A319 ceo
        Seat cost per departure: $74.20
        Cost per departure: $11,572
        Implied number of seats: $11,572 / $74.20 = 155.96
        Actual Number of Seats: 156

        A320 ceo
        Seat cost per departure: $64.70
        Cost per departure: $12,026
        Implied number of seats: $12,026 / $64.70 = 185.87
        Actual Number of Seats: 177 or 186

        737-7
        Seat cost per departure: $60.70
        Cost per departure: $10,495
        Implied number of seats: $10,495 / $60.70 = 172.90
        Actual Number of Seats: We’ll find out, exit limit for 737-7 is 172.

        737-8-200
        Seat cost per departure: $54.90
        Cost per departure: $10,976
        Implied number of seats: $10,976 / $54.90 = 199.92
        Actual Number of Seats: We’ll find out, exit limit for 737-8-200 is 210.

        Allegiant used a fuel price of $2.18 per gallon in their estimates.

  3. As regards the lack of early A320 slots at AB, why should that be unpalatable to Allegiant? Allegiant only bought 19 airframes from AB…the remaining 92 are secondhand. Still plenty of bargains to be had on the secondhand market.

    Logic dictates that Scott’s stance must be correct: BA must have given Allegiant the Mother of all Discounts.

    • The Grass is always greener.

      Airbus wins its superior.

      Boeing winds and its discounts. Airbus can’t offer discounts? Hmmm

      Shrug

      • > Boeing winds and its discounts. Airbus can’t offer discounts? Hmmm <

        Did you mean "Boeing wins.." above?

        As I see it Airbus has no need to offer discounts, being backlogged for some time; and no special need for loss-leader sales like
        this one. Boeing appears to have that need..

        • Instead of 3 different fleets with A320ceo, A320neo and A220 they will have 2 with A320ceo and 737MAX. GE/CFMI might help Allegiant as well keeping P&W out just as their new version of PW1100G is soon the production standard.

          • Logic says if good second hand aircrat were to be had they would be.

            Ergo they are not.

            Airbus has to offer discounts to get KLM as the shift over is really costly. Ergo, big enough order and they will both find air frames on the line they can juggle and discounts.

          • @TW, I think KLM-AF was special that Airbus has kept 100 slots open just for Air France, the rest will wait or get line numbers not picked up by the original customer nor snatched up by the leasing companies. So I think Airbus was honest this time as the A320neo family is sold out for some years. A bit similar to Pilatus PC-24’s as they open the orderbook for a few weeks then close it as they filled its production capacity in Stans.

          • claes:

            Good point, but you can’t discount the switch over is costly so there has to be some offsets there.

            Maybe not a screaming deal but a good deal most would not get.

          • Hello Claes,

            Re: “GE/CFMI might help Allegiant as well keeping P&W out just as their new version of PW1100G is soon the production standard.”

            Your hunch about GE/CFM and engine commonality helping is correct. From Allegiant’s transcript of their investor call on 1-6-22.

            “Additionally, while the manufacturer of the airframe may be different and, as Maury noted, the engine OEM remains the same, CFM. And that is really important especially for our used fleet. This order has deepened our partnership with CFM. As part of the deal they have agreed to broaden support for our nearly 250 current in-service engines, the 5B, which arguably are the most successful motors in aviation history.”

            See the link below for the full transcript.

            https://ir.allegiantair.com/static-files/2991314a-7fd5-47f1-9e0a-f4185c5d8664

    • -> Allegiant Investors Punish Airline for Adding Boeing to Fleet

      Allegiant Airlines tumbled the most in 18 months after the carrier reversed its strategy of keeping costs in check by flying only Airbus SE planes, ordering 50 Boeing Co. 737 Max jets. […]

      Adding a second fleet type also increases expenses for crew training and parts inventory.

      “I’m not surprised that they went with new equipment but I’m shocked they ended up with a different type,” said Andrew Levy, a former Allegiant president who now leads startup Avelo Airlines. “It’s really incredibly hard to manage a second type, and I just really don’t understand why they would want to take it on.”

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/ca.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/allegiant-sets-2-5-billion-153301401.html

      • They are looking post Covid and want an efficient fleet.

        The only efficient fleet to be had is MAX.

        • “The only efficient fleet to be had is MAX.”

          Qantas and KLM beg to differ. I trust they have capable staff and have done years of detailed analysis.

          When are you going to start your own site?? 😂

          • You forgot Delta — which also has zero MAXs.
            That’s a US carrier, so it may make a greater impression upon him.
            Delta was delighted that it was in no way negatively impacted by the MAX fiasco…while AA, UA and SW suffered.

    • Southwest Cites ‘Frustration’ Over 737 Max Certification Delays

      “Boeing had earlier indicated the plane would be certified by mid-2021 …”

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bnnbloomberg.ca/southwest-cites-frustration-over-737-max-certification-delays-1.1694195.amp.html

      BA lost 300 potential order from KLM and Qantas. “Win” 100 order from Allegiant which is a well-known “bottom feeder”.

      Allegiant is known for buying used aircraft, it calls this order as “opportunistic”.

      Allegiant jet is known for being cramped, can it squeeze more than 200 seats in the MAX 200??

      Allegiant added 16 additional seats to its MD-80 fleet by removing galleys.

  4. Its good to see development of the 787. They sure hit the right market out of the ballpark.

    Now, when do they start delivering the danged things again?

    • Pedro:

      No, totally different market segments.

      You are aware the 777X is MUCH longer? Wider?

      • You are aware that the VLA concept is dead?
        Most airlines now go for frequency rather than size. And they tend to dislike excessively heavy airframes 😏

          • That’s the past — we’re talking now about the future.

            The 747 was once immensely popular…but times changed, didn’t they?

          • Many customers of 300ER will probably not going to jump to 777X. Sounds Greaaat for the potential market of the 777X.

      • I think the 787-10HGW and the A350-1000 practically killed the 777-8.

      • I have to say that when Boeing brings this to market. It’s going to be tough to sell a 777X. Because the -10 has the same per seat efficiency as a 777-9. If it can cover 99% of the routes. You’re going to see a lot of customers pick this up instead of that.

        For example the basic 787-10 operates TPE to YVR and TPE to SEA for Eva air on cargo only and will start daily passenger operations in the winter. These replaced 300ERs. I have a feeling Eva air will be inclined to pick this up over a 300ER.

        The range boosts Boeing are talking about here are very significant.

        And it looks like they’re reading the room on the 777-9

        Will they still sell it? Of course they will but they want that 300ER replacement market come hell or high water.

        Till airbus is able to sort out 350 pricing the 350-1000 will struggle on replacing 300ERs.

        When it is sorted. Boeing has the lower risk aircraft that is still very high revenue generating. It’s volumetric cargo capabilities sir head and shoulders above the 787-9 and A350-900 not quite at the 35K and 77W level. But very very close.

        -10 is very unique combines very high revenue potential with very low fuel burn.

        • Good points.
          BA recently downsized the projected total program size for the 777X from 400 to just 350 units. That’s a meager number in relation to the sizable development costs, and puts the program in a similar corner to the A380 and 747-8.
          Maybe the penny is finally dropping at BA, and there’s a realization that continuing the program would be to throw good money after bad. Having some beefed-up 787s to offer as an alternative might help to contain the damage and prevent defections to the A350. It would also explain why there still hasn’t been a 777XF launch.

          • Opus99:

            Well reasoned. Have to see of course.

            And that also brings into question the A350-900 and more so the 1000

            It will be interesting.

            Assuming Boeing can get the 787 back into the air to test the new version that right now they can’t deliver anyway. Argh! Hate to see a really good aircraft undermined by stupidity of management.

          • -> “Hate to see a really good aircraft …”

            A really good aircraft is NOT one being grounded repeatedly and forced to suspend delivery by regulator for countless production issues.

          • Pedro:

            You are wrong. If Boeing had adhered to the agree mfg spec this would not be an issue.

            Flight data says the 787 flew by far the most wide body ops during the deepest part of Covid (not sure where we are at on either one now as its up and down so much)

            The 787 has sold 1500 and it would be no surprise to see it hit 2000-2500 over time.

            It works and it works well and it is reliable.

            Stupidity in cutting corners and ignoring issues built up and hit them in the face.

            Its nothign to do with the aircraft and how good it is, its all to do with management allowing slop to creep in and force the FAA to step in.

            Airbus has a serious issue on the A350. Long term they are talking about changing the type of grounding grid. While its iffy to fly right now, that does not mean its a bad aircraft.

            In fact its a very good one. 787 will sell more as it hit the market center perfectly and does exactly what it needs to.

            787 issue have nothign to do with the aircraft and all to do with Boeing incredibly bad management cascading into failing quality control.

            And keep in mind most of the quality problems (that should have been caught) come from Italy.

  5. Boeing is gearing up the -10 for the 300ER replacement cycle IMO.

    This does not require much resources. If weight won’t increase and thrust remain the same. Mixture of MTOW, reinforcements, take out some weight and fuel Software updates. Compelling aircraft the -10ER will be.

    I can see BA, KLM and UA finding this attractive. With the range of the 200ER I can see KLM using this to replace both 200ER and 300ER. BA for 200ER, UA for 200ER

    But of course Boeing must first resume 87 deliveries. And get stability on that. Then they can sell these upgraded 87s.

    • Most of the B77W are not anywhere near replacement.
      introduced in 2004, most of them have been build late 00 and early 10s. Main deliveries from 2006-20016, with the peak in the 4 years 13 to 16, 99 built per year, almost soley B77w.

      So they are in an age range of 5 – 15 years old – with less usage the last 2 years.
      And the majority not even 10 years old.

      The B77W replacement cycle is far ahead.
      Up for replacement is the A340, B767, and older B772/3 as older A330 and the A380.

      The B77W will fly way into the 2020ties and be up for repalcement around 2030, when they hit 15-20 years of age.

          • 25% less fuel is nothing to sneer at.
            If you can dump the 77W without hurt ..

  6. What’s the business proposition of making these HGW variants? Isn’t the addressable market small with most segments adequately addressed by current range/payload capabilities. Or, is what’s good on the high end of payload/range good lower down the curve to make these compelling over shorter segments?

    • As noted by Nanaeto, Boeing left the 777-200/300 slot open with the move to the 777X (the -8 is complimentary and a F start, not competitive)

  7. Expected, hoped for, for years. A good direction.

    IMO Boeing betters spends a few billions/years extra to make it a really viable 787 HGW, providing the base for a freighter & stretch too.

    Long overdue though. 300-350 Seats long haul used to be dominated by the 777. Now the 787-9 is on the small side, the 787-10 good for Asia without cargo.. , the 777-8 looked overweight from the start & the 777-9 way bigger.

    Providing Airbus an open door to replace the 777-200ER & 7777-300ER with many, many, (most?) Boeing 777 customers.

    https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1339277

    Originally the 787-9 and 787-10 were specified with a bigger wing. When development problems got out of hand on the Dreamliner, it was decided the 787-8 wing is perfect enough..

    Scott saw through the 787-10 weakness, but denial and alternative views prevailed for years. https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Figure-5-781-v-A359.png

    • keejse:

      Overall I think its a spot on write-up, well done.

      I do not believe the 787-9 had a bigger wing, the -10 was not planned.

      The -3 had a smaller wing, then the 787- 8 wing, then got cancelled.

      • Same wing for dash 3, just no wing tip features which reduced span a bit

        • The -9 would have had bigger wingtip devices.
          ( look into the WP:787 _page history_. The current page has been “sanitized” in more recent times removing most traces of issues and changes during gestation.)
          Nixed in the cost overruns and explained as “not needed the wing is perfect”.
          Using the expanded MTOW will increase fuel consumption. ( over A359 numbers? )

      • The 787-10 was in the plans from the start, 2005 link:
        https://www.flightglobal.com/emirates-pushes-boeing-on-787-10x/63275.article

        The 787-9 and 787-10 were originally planned to have 6ft / 2m bigger wing span. https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_4_07/AERO_Q407.pdf

        Assuming the 777-8 will never be competitive with the A350, I think it would be a good idea to review the 787 wing, with all data that has been amassed over the years, and see what needs to be done to grow 787-10 MTOW by 15-20t and wing area by ~7% (I did some calculations, interpolations, https://07185918574543712684.googlegroups.com/attach/120f51a1dc1250/Flies%20scrapbook%20WB%201.0.jpg?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrEUVTAWISlRjvyRodtdEnsdcpnXnQx6xpRV3nEf787_dCU8-UpffcOBQ-KjpcrC58fap4kGI_8Ld0mlCE1Wj3cd4DKZgQQZTAif9tYzyIGCLUxjwMk)

        • However Boeing clearly staes taht their will be no increase in thrust and/or empty weight which DEFINITELY means neither a “new wing” nor a MTOW bump of 20t. This would be a MAX.

          • Be sure that is they want to increase payload-range to be more competitive with the (pretty good) A350-900, this won’t be for free.

            Regardless of what Boeing clearly states today.

            Until yesterday they said (maybe even thought) the 787-9, 787-10, 777-8, 777XF would do just fine against the A350 variants..

            Observation is the ROW doesn’t agree. A is taking over in the WB segment too (shock). So Boeing will clearly state something else tomorrow.

          • Takeoff run then should increase to 3100+m ( ISA-0ft )
            It will do nothing for brake energy and tire speed limited regimes ( Hot n High, sales limiter from the get go.)

          • -> “no increase in thrust”

            Makes me wonder its performance in hot weather.

        • keesje:

          As I understand it, while the -10 talks came up early it was not planned.

          Trying to unravel the wing history is a ????? one. All I can say is someplace along the line the wing was common to the -8/9 and then the -10 as a low cost development.

          I don’t see Boeing doing a modded wing at this point, they will be lucky to get the 787 back in the air soon (one prediction is 3rd quarter of this year, ARGH!)

          • TW you are right Boeings priority is getting back to deliveries & cash flow. But I think they realize portfolio action is needed to be done 300-350 8000NM. Doing nothing can end up worse longer term.

    • With increased range, same engines and wing your MTOW creeps up. Normally you then need to reinforce the structure, landing gear and cost comes creeping up. Often you get a new powerful engine and revise the center tanks to increase fuel load. The 767-200 started at 52k, the 767-300ER has 60-62k engines. If there was a Eddie Rickenbacker today he would get Boeing to install the RR Ultrafan onto the 787-10 (as the original did with the RR Merlin onto the P-51). Kalitta might be of the same stuff?

      • Without increased thrust and more wing for the 787HGW, I don’t see what is newsworthy here.

        Also, there’s the continuing question of that company’s PR Vaporware reputation. Talk is cheap- and they do a lot of it (see that Seattle Times same-ol’ same-ol’ article interview w/ the Boeing flack linked by Pedro (?) the other day).

        • When you’re able to answer how airbus will get the 350-1000 to fly 20,000KM with no change to the wings or thrust and only an increase in MTOW. Then you can work backwards.

          United 787s range was extended by a simple fuel software update that allowed them to operate to Bangalore and allowed them to operate the high altitude of Johannesburg

          These new jets are able to utilise low hanging fruit in new ways that the older ones cannot seem to be able to.

          These are one of the things coming out of Boeing that will probably cost the least money to develop and will go a long way. I don’t think it’s vapourware. But you’re welcome to think so.

      • Claes:

        The RR Merlin was a well proven in Combat engine at the time.

        Equally, the Allison was a far better engine (it lasted a lot longer on nose, it had a lot fewer parts, it came with a gasket kit and it ran low on glycol much better – see use in the GA role with the P-40)

        The Ultra is 5-10 years away. And its not even a prototype yet, let alone a pre production article. No one is going to jump on that engine with RR current track record.

          • Duke:

            That is a kludged together test article, not even a prototype.

            At least 5 years to a prototype and 10 years before you see a finished engine.

            RR has a long ways to go let alone prove they can crank out a decent engine.

  8. My understanding is that Emirates found the B787-10 unattractive not only because of range but because it couldn’t get out of Dubai at MTOW due to hot and high conditions. The HGW versions with their more powerful engines will no doubt allay these concerns.

    How will Airbus respond? Is Rolls Royce doing anything to improve the Trent XWB and Trent 7000? Airbus is now its main customer? There is a weight reduction program in progress for the A350 that might yield something. The 10 abreast A350 layout I think can be dismissed as being suitable for only a tiny fraction of customers.

    Boeing is making bold claims and coming after Airbus in thr widebody market.

    • Hard to say DXB is hot and high….

      it’s only hot, the airport is almost on sea level otherwise.

      • I’ll call it hot and/or high then. Emirates chose the B787-9 over the B787-10 due to this reason. There may have been others, such as range, but that airline will always choose the biggest airliner it can practically use. Addis Ababa is both hot and high and definitely would not take the B787-10. (Both A350s are suitable)

    • “How will Airbus respond? ”

      No idea if this is a response, preventive or unrelated.

      TCDS for the A359 now lists 283t as max MTOW. ( +3t )

      • Good find. Airbus must have a considerable MTOW increase available on the A350-1000 as revealed by its ‘winning’ of the Qantas project sunrise competition. There is also weight reduction program. The project sunrise program was suspended but I would imagine the competition will be run again now that a B787-9 IGW/HGW would work well against the A350-1000 in range. Project Sunrise is Qantas’s ambition to fly Sydney to London non stop with standard economy class and with cargo.

        I am somewhat curious as to how much hub busting aircraft such as the B787-9 IGW, improved A350, A321XLR and the mooted 4000nmi range A220-300 IGW will cause.

        • IMU “hubbusting” is a bit of a mirage.
          few new connection really are p2p.
          Most are H2p. Some are P2P but those are just another tag for H2P or H2H connections.

          simplistic:
          assume a set of 10 p destinations.
          assume each p relates to all other p evenly.
          each p2p connection claims 1/100th of overall traffic.
          Now put a hub in the center. Every p serves all traffic to one destination H.
          each p2H connection claims 1/10 of the traffic. twice ( for the ongoing leg.)
          capacity demand is scaled ~~ 1 to 20
          if the p2H traffic needs an A380@500 the p2p traffic only uses 25seater 🙂
          OK, real demand is not evenly distributed.

  9. Puh, that could be a very very effcient airplane in a very good size.

    United packs 318PAX in a 4 class Ten.
    SIA packs 337 PAX in 2 class for inner Asia and short longhaul flights.
    Etihad puts almost 300 PAX in 2 class to mostly Indian & European destinations.

    Emirates didn’t order due to limited range & payload out of the hot gulf.

    The B787 is kind of the minimal size for 3-3-3 seating in Y, and kind of the sweet spot for 1-2-1 C.
    A Ten with 1000 miles more range would be a great plane to have, it would be capable of flying most routes with superior CASMto the A359, especially if you can add payload.
    So far the Ten isn’t selling that well because in real life operations the range is a limiting factor.
    If Boeing is able to eliminate that factor, Airbus will have some work to do.

    I do see it as a threat to the B777x also – if the Ten gets lower cost and less capacity than the B779, while being able to serve the same routes, why would you take the risk and fly a 400pax plane? If your 330 Pax plane can do it?

    The B789 – idk how many routes it would gain, but it was just a matter of time till Boeing would do something to it’s most modern and advanced family.
    I just wonder what Boeing can do without adding OWE – you need a stronger structure, etc. – and without a bigger wing with more lift or more thrust.

    My university time is a while ago already, but if i remember aeroplane physics right, you need more lift or more thrust or more runway if you want to fly higher weights.

    • They could use lighter materials in other places to make room for the reinforcements needed in the crucial area to take the MTOW higher. I hear that there’s still more optimisation of the 787 that Boeing can do there.

      I believe customers have asked Boeing for this particularly United. They want the -10 to be able to do more and if Boeing can do it. That’s 50 frames and I believe Boeing told United they will do it (as they’ve revealed now) which I believe prompted the 350 EIS to 2027. I also believe this is what United wanted to order last year With the 787s but Boeing wanted more MAX deals understandably. I expect them to visit the 787-10 again in due course

      KLM as well already stretching their-10s to the limit. I know they’ll be very interested

      Eva Air too and BA which were very impressed with the -10s cargo capabilities when they took it on board in 2020

      • Do you know why the B787 development was so expensive?

        She was overweight, so they had to use a lot of titanium to make it lighter, and had to redevelop half the plane for the -9 and -10.

        I doubt they find a lot of weight to cut, so i really wonder how Boeing wants to do that.

        • It doesn’t mean more weight can’t be taken out. Like you point out there was a lot of money to bring the weight down. There was probably a crossover of how much to spend to bring the weight down to where it needs to be. Not where it can go. But that’s my speculation

          • Sash:

            That is a poor attempt at Alt Facts .

            The use of Titanium had nothing to do with trying to stop the 787 overweight situation. The use of Titanium was PLANNED from the start.

            Yes the 787-8 came in seriously overweight. That was creep in all areas due to lack of program control by Boeing.

            The 787-8 is still overweight per paper but met the SFC specs.

            The 787-9 took that weight out from all over the aircraft as they figured out who exceeded what and where was well as having a test item to work with and finding out where it was over built.

            the wing join area issue was part of that that failed, they thought they could take weight out there and could not.

            You don’t design an aircraft and suddenly start substitute something like Titanium.

            I gather you are not aware of the corrosive interaction and the need to isolate the composites from the Titanium as well. You have to plan that from the start, not the end.

            Its one of many reasons you don’t just willy nilly substitute this stuff for that stuff.

          • @Transworld:
            LOL. Big Lol.

            Of course Boeing had to use way more titanium then they planed or liked to somehow make the weight limits.

            Ofc every modern plane has titanium in it, it’s a excellent material for planes, strong, light, durable – but it’s expensive and as you say right (congratulations) complicated.
            That’s one of the points where it got out of hands, and that’s where all that dev. cost and deffered cost came up.

            The story is well known meanwhile, a lot of issues during the development and construction. The more respect is to pay for what a good and competetive airplane the B789 did become.
            Every airline that is capable of operating WBs can operate a B789 and will do well with her.

          • TW:”That is a poor attempt at Alt Facts .
            The use of Titanium had nothing to …”

            Titanium was _also_ added in a range of places where the design “underperformed”.
            Later Boeing made quite an effort to replace Ti with Al and composite stuff. 787 was not only overweight (once fixed with Ti usage ) but also extremely expensive to produce ( replace Ti with Al, .. ) a 2 step process.
            That process came to a halt after target weights were reached. (limiting further investment ) I don’t think that all available potential was “released” at the time.

            SW for range extension:
            did B adapt the Fuel SW to provide improved CoG management?

          • Both:

            Titanium use was planned all along and in large amounts.

            Its costly so you only need it where you have to.

            Yes you tweak and adjust as you go along and in the case of Aluminum replacement, phew, its light, it does the job and it cost less.

            A lot has to do with taking weight out ergo the Aluminum.

            Also taking costs down.

            But saying Titanium was replacing other materials in a large scale AFTER the 787 final design is wrong. It was not.

            All aircraft tweak after first mfg (see the terrible twins) – the 787-9 is a very refined -8 as they learned where they cold take the weight out (part of the -8 is now refined with a -9 type aft fuselage)

            I believe Leeham said that the -8 is (or was) only 30% common to the -9.

            But if you look at the A350, after Aircraft 17, they did massive changes to it as well. Both are good birds.

          • @transworld

            Big mouth you had, washed it got.

            Are you even talking yourself out of your “Alternativ facts” BS?

            Really coming up with the story that B didn’t do a huge development afterwards, then saying a few words later that B had to “re-develop” the 87 for the -9 and then used the -9/-10 improvments on the -8.
            Guess what B did in that development.

            Yes, made it cheaper to build. Switched material. Saved material. Optimized, etc.
            Your words miss a major part of underlying logic.

            No discussion the B787-9 is a great plane in the end, but you just have to take into account that Boeing had done it twice. Or 1.5 times.
            And Boeing is selling it so cheap, the’ll propably never regain the development and deffered cost.
            A very good plane, and i guess it’s the reason why there’s not much demand for the B777x.
            Why buy a 400 Pax airliner, when you have a very capable, less risk, cheap and well working 300 Pax B789?

            Still, i wonder how much twerk the wing would need to get the -10 on level with the A359.

    • > Airbus isn’t sitting on it’s hands on the A350 <

      Good find- thanks for that link.

      • Actually I found it was a propaganda article that keesje does not normally use.

        All of it is stuff that did not happen (1200) is pie in the sky in the future (RR Ultra) and single pilot ops that is not remotely close to approval?

        It reads like a Fairy Tail (sp intended)

        • Your comments are incomprehensible and filled with nonsequiturs, though at least in this last one there was a bit of context, for clues..

          About “Fairy Tail” [sic], I’ll say nothing.

          Valve lash settings, P-51 engines, boilers, rudimentary carpentry alignments..

          odd.

          • It’s cold and dark up north, and there’s not much to do all day.
            That kind of environment can take a toll 😉

            Airbus has the finances and the customer base to enable it to run several new projects concurrently. It’s generating bags of revenue, so it can fund whatever R&D it likes.
            BA, on the other hand, is on the breadline; in view of its very low revenue stream and crippling debt servicing burden, it has to be very thrifty with its meager funds. Its situation will deteriorate further as soon as the Fed starts to increase interest rates this year (possibly as early as March), because debt rollovers will then become more expensive.

          • Billl7:

            Thank you, it helps though the cold and dark.

            Very few people work with shims (aka valve settings just use a shim to check and or adjust) so they have not a clue how fine .005 is let alone trying to say, yes this is good and no its not. Go do a valve set around .005 (yes I have, my Ural uses exactly that) and let me know.

            You do risk getting me going on the much maligned Sherman tank though.

          • Bryce:

            Well done, true on all accounts. Congratulations . After years of trying you get to advance from Green to Blue.

            note: The advancing years take their toll on me more than the dark and cold though the cold and dark are not any fun.

            Ask Scott how it feels, he and I are about the same age

        • I think I mentioned the times lines (2025-2030) in the title & provided all (2021) links. They are all active projects in progress, not Fairy Tails.

          Unfortunately so far Boeing didn’t really develop 787 past its 2005 program plan’, focussing on 777x, NMA, accounting blocks, short term free cash flow and streamlining certification.

          Inevitably the chickens have come home to roost. Boeing needs to reboot it’s financial steering mechanisms before it’s too late.

          It seems Boeing finally sees there a strategic gab between 787-9 and 777-9 is painful. A beefed up 787-10 is essential. Also Boeing is considering a few meter 777-8 stretch, hoping to hold off A350-1000.

          • Of course Airbus is not going sit still. But I like that. I want both manufacturers to be pushing each other to create great aircraft. Like they have done for a while.

          • kesje:

            none of it is new and none of it is imminent . The A350F is the next leap.

            One man cockpits? Really? 20 years at best. Ultra? Hah. 10 years if RR can actually make a decent engine.

          • TW, Ultrafan may be progressing a bit faster than you realuze & Airbus making sure it fits the A350.

            The observation the innovations aren’t “new” often strenghtens feasibility & EIS.

            I think Airbus is working towards an upgraded big A350 end of this decade.

  10. and Ba has this great idea to have the avionics force the 787 nose down if it looks like the plane’s getting close to a stall… and there’re already plenty of AOA sensors because it only has to look at one.

  11. For those who classify this as vapourware

    A simple search on LinkedIn will show you Boeing has had people working on this since about 2019.

    Just search “787 IGW” or “787IGW”and you’ll see people who are on the project currently or have been on it

    From this little research Boeing is very deep into this project and they seem more like at the tail end of it, from what I can see.

    The changes that need to be made have been outlined with the suppliers etc.

    From what I can tell, there’s going to be a strengthening of the wingbox.

    • It’s probably the only (nominally) commercially viable “project” that the company can undertake within the constraints of its current financial situation.
      The investment is relatively small, and the return is relatively promising.

    • I hope and believe you are right Boeing has been on this for a while.

      But no higher MTOW and wingbox strenghtening seems contradictory at least.

      • There is a higher MTOW. They said no higher empty weight. Maybe they’re taking weight out in other places? So maybe they’ve balanced it out?

        I don’t have the details. But judging off what people have written on their LinkedIn profiles there is a wingbox strengthening.

        • Definitely means higher OEW.
          BA’s PR talk might be little more than smoke screen.

          • It could be. But does that mean weight can’t be taken out elsewhere? To balance the weight increase. Or maybe the weight increase is minimal

  12. Regarding 787-9/10 HGW, I will bet on a simple buff-up by 9t (20k). Such an approach should add 600nm, or hour and a half flight time.
    By the way Airbus did the same with A330neo (from 242 to 251t).

    • no oew change
      no thrust change
      < 3t MOTW increase

      add a bit of fibbing in the B side
      and don't expect anything beyond 5..6t
      i.e. 260t MOTW

      • > no oew change
        no thrust change
        < 3t MOTW increase

        add a bit of fibbing in the B side
        and don't expect anything beyond 5..6t
        i.e. 260t MOTW <

        Sounds about right to me.

        • Bill7:

          You don’t think the Airlines can figure out what is real?

          And despite any press spin, Boeing is not going to offer them something that fails the reality test.

          Why? Its written into the contracts.

      • Yeah we are expecting about 6 tonnes to 260T MTOW and fuel management software modification. I’m expecting the fuel management modification will be similar to what United got to allow for EWR-JNB and SFO-BLR

  13. 9t is max, 6t more probable, adds one hour of flight, makes ANZ dash 10 hop AKL to LAX affordable (adds some cargo) and dash 9 hop to JFK possible (against headwinds).

    • All it said is they were looking at REMOVER titanium if they could and found the windshield the only spot that they could make it work.

      Titanium planned from the start and it still there.

Leave a Reply

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