In case of KLM, well that is kinda their speciality. But it does show that the 787-10 has sufficient range even for an airline like KLM with its network. Nearly a decade ago, KLM actually switched six of its 787-9 orders for 787-10. And since then, KLM only ordered 787-10. Total fleet will be 13x 787-9 and 15x 787-10. But the interesting part is that for the 777-200ER and 777-300ER replacement, KLM opted for the A350-900 and A350-1000. So they still need more range for their really long range destinations. Even 787-9 didn't cut it for that and KLM seemed to have been done waiting for the 777X.
KLMs choice of A350 was mainly due to unavailability of Russian airspace and the A350 economics were better. And apart from that, Boeing wasn’t able to offer earlier delivery slots and Airbus was. Otherwise just getting more 787s made logical sense for KLM.
I think their 787s air mainly A330 replacements. People always misunderstood and put 787 against A350 when the rival of 787 is really the A330. It makes perfect sense that KLM replaces their 777s with A350 since the A350 has very similar capabilities with the 777, while 777x is a tad too big and I often think 777x is basically a 2 engined 747-400
@@DanielWW2 Yes because those 744s were actually 747-400M combi aircraft so their passenger carrying capacity probably is not far off of the 789 despite being much bigger
I think had Boeing designed wings and bigger fuel tanks for the -10, it would be appealing for customers. Boeing ended up using the same wings that are used on the -8 and -9
Airbus did that with its A380, it built the original released version with bigger wings than necessary as it anticipated the larger A380 minor model to eventually become the most appealing, as is often the case with new airplanes (bigger always seems to be better). Oops, bad timing due to the public's preference for point to point flying in lieu of hub and spoke. And the rest is history...
I guess I can say Ive flown on the longest 787-10 route for December 2024, there was a full flight of 318 pax on the ORD-HND flight on that particular day, it seemed like there was a full load of cargo, though of course I cant be certain. Its interesting to note that United has more Pax on its 787-10s than Delta does on the similarly sized A350-900s, 318 vs 306. Personally, given its size I do think that long term this will be a factor on -10 sales figures, losing out to the aforementioned A350-900. As for the airlines currently operating or that have ordered the type? I dont think the current range is as big an issue for them, even Qantas has chosen to bring the type on despite their rather notorious, continued clamour for increased range on aircraft due to their geographic position. So if nothing else, the capacity and not insignificant range is definitely enticing some customers, and Boeing will eventually bring out a second generation of 787 variants that will likely include a -9 and -10 HGW variants, likely notated as ER, though when that will be remains to be seen.
Considering that the B787 is still not in profit, despite 1200+ deliveries, the 777X not likely to generate income until the late 2020s, the next generation of airforce one is loosing Boeing a fortune, development of a second generation 787 seems like a hard pill for shareholders to swallow. Are Boeing shareholders masochists or something.........?
@@ablecdn1565 Well boeing doesnt get subsidies like airbus does from its government. Also boeing is forced to sign loss making contracts by its own govt. Thats the difference.
@@artrandy I worked at Boeing for 29 years. I have no idea how we made money. Giving deep discounts to entice buyers to choose us over Airbus, developing new airplanes with seemingly no payback, giving out generous bonus to all employees every year (especially executives, of course). It must be an accounting sleigh of hand, with depreciation write offs, stock buy backs, bank loans, cash flow magic, etc. Hopefully my retirement pension is exempt from a potential financial collapse. Fingers crossed...
@@sourabh7137 Both the A350 and A330neo were in profit years ago. That means any "subsidy" has also been paid back. The vast US defense budget has come to the rescue of many US companies over the years, when other companies around the world have gone bust because of a downturn. You're simply making excuses for Boeing........
I’m suprised that more Middle East and European airlines aren’t lining up for the 787-10. It seems like a perfect fit for most of them since they can get to most of their destinations from their hubs with very good fuel consumption.
B787-10 is often compared with B777-200 or 300(Non ER). I think that makes where this aircraft is located in market. Also retirement of classic B777 series is around the corner, which makes B787-10 more efficient than its predecessor.
And yet it doesn't sell as well as A330-300. Whilst A350-900, which have the same capacity as B787-10, sold almost 4 times more because of their higher range and payload capability.
@@anggergalih3414 I know you're not educated enough to know this but 485 A330-300 was delivered after 2010. Which is 62.5% of the entirety of A330-300's backlogs. They are very young and new. The replacement cycle won't be started until 2030. By then, the market would be split between A330-900neo and B787-9.
@@nntflow7058 The A350 competes against both the 787 and 777. And because it is between the 2 in size and capacity, I think the logical calculation of success of Boeing Vs. Airbus is the number of airlines purchasing and flying the A350 vs. the combined total of the 787 and 777. Having said this, the fact that Airbus can compete fairly successfully against two major models with one major model is very impressive.
@@nntflow7058 Perhaps my misunderstanding of your point...my point being that the 787-10 is not competitive directly and fully against the A350-900, as the -10 is a derivative with diminished range. And therefore would not ever gain 50/50 market share. But the 787/777 combo would have more market share than the airplane Airbus designed to go against both Boeing models.
I think there is a few issues with the -10. 1. The wing is not optimized for its size and weight. All 787’s share the same 60 meter wing. If Boeing were to say add a 64 meter design or a 68 meter design(with folding tips like the 777X) this would greatly increase efficiency and performance. 2. The lack of extra fuel tanks. With a larger wing and redesigned fuel tanks, it could carry more fuel for a longer range. And I think they should do what Airbus did with the A350-1000, and try to increase the max engine thrust for the GEnX, and Trent 1000. This would allow the aircraft to carry more weight or fuel, and have better performance.
I think it’s because the -10 is essentially only a stretched variant of the -9 with very few other changes. This variant isn’t an improved or upgraded version of the -9 like the 777-200LR for example. The LR was a truly upgraded version of the -200ER. It had upgraded more powerful engines, structural and aerodynamic improvements, updated avionics and additional fuel tanks. Boeing could’ve done this with the 787-10 but I’m assuming it came down to time and resources. At the time it came into service (2017), the MAX 8 was also coming into service and Boeing was more focused on that family which makes sense considering the MAX is a much bigger program for them.
@@FlyByWire1 I get what you saying but Airbus was able to upgrade the wing and engine of the A350-1000 while juggling the A321LR/XLR, And the A330NEO. I don’t se why Boeing wouldn’t be able to do it. Maybe like what Coby Explanes said in his video about the -10 might come true. He said that hoping might build a -10ER. It would have a higher profile wing, more powerful engines, and more fuel tanks
That is stupid though. Boeing only sell 88 B777-200. So boeing trying to capture a very limited market. While A350-900 which have the same exact passengers capacity, sold almost 4 more times than B787-10 with their higher payload and range. If Boeing had created more range and higher payload B787-10 from the get go. The market would be closer to 50/50 for this type of aircraft.
The range of 6,000 nautical miles in most customer configurations for the 787-10 means the plane can cover the vast majority of long routes with no issues. In fact, it's right at the limit of a route like SFO-HKG. I do think Boeing is working on a 787-10ER variant with a range of around 7,050 nautical miles, and that could make it a perfect 777-200ER replacement; airlines like United and British Airways would buy at least 25 planes each to replace their aging 777-200ER fleets.
it can fly to anywhere in the US from Korea and Japan except for maybe ICN and ATL but that route has a high demand so even a 787-10 is enough to fulfill the demand on the route. Korean air and delta (joint venture partners) each have a daily service with 747-8 or 777-300 ER from KAL and A350-900 from Delta. All those aircrafts have more than enough range for that route.
The ER version, with redesigned wings would do wonders for the -10, but I'm afraid it might be a little too late. Like, where are the orders going to come from that'd make that type of investment worth it? An ER would also require new engines. I haven't done the calc, but the ones used right now max at 81,000 and the -10 is already using 76,000. With an increased weight from bigger wings and fuel, probably reinforced gears, etc the plane is going to need more, around the 90,000's ballpark.
I think the -10ER would be a great investment for Boeing. It could allow the -10ER to more adequately replace the 777-200ER’s based off capacity & range (also allowing for more orders), allowing airlines like EVA and United to stretch out their route network further.
Due to the airspace restrictions in Russia KLM AMS-TPE service is not executed by 787-10 anymore. The longer route is about 11500km and up to 16:30h westbound. KLM uses 787-9 or 777-200
The 787-10 is sort of an A330-300 and 777-300 (regular variant) replacement, for carriers who want a regional/medium-haul. Singapore Airlines, Eva Air (future), ANA use this concept.
I think that one issue is that the same wing is used across every 787, being more specialised for the -9. Bigger wings just for the -10 Would be a great move. But I don't want a wing falling off my plane either
With reference to the beginning of the video, I think it's because back then launch customer Singapore Airlines uses the B78X for regional routes (with regional 2 class cabin) for flights up to 8 hours. SQ also uses some of its A359s in a regional configuration but with less economy seats. B78X is preferred for it's lighter weight compared to the A359 and therefore lower fuel burn. Both jets replace the A333s which were all retired during the pandemic.
Quite some inaccuraties in this video. KLM does not deploy the 787-10 on routes to TPE and GIG on a regular, only LAX sees regular KLM 787-10 service out of the mentioned routes. KLM operates a combination of 787-9 and 777-200ER to both TPE and GIG (Source: Flightradar24, KLM807 & KLM705). So this video does not provide a proper depiction of the usage of the 787-10. KLM actually uses their 787-10 predomanitely on routes like AMS-JFK / AMS-ORD / AMS-YYZ / AMS-DXB which are all around 7000km - 8000km route distance.
So, the fuel capacities of the 787-9 and -10 are exactly the same, and the MTOWs are also nearly identical despite the 787-10 being longer. Initially, I assumed that the 787-10 had the same amount of fuel because the wings were exactly the same size; the stretched fuselage of the -10 could increase weight, which increases fuel burn and so reduces range. But after watching this video, it sounds to me that the 787-10 is doing just fine. But I'm thinking about how American Airlines operates a fleet of 777-200ERs, averaging 23 years old. What will replace these jets? It seems the airline shows no interest in the Boeing 777X while at the same time giving up Airbus widebodies when American canceled its Airbus A350 order in 2018, retired its reliable A330s in 2020, and has not returned to the airline ever since. A 787-10ER or the rumored 787-10HGW could work for more airlines and help boost sales, just like what happened to the 777-200ER and -300ER over its original Non-ER variants.
I've flown United's ORD-HND 7810. Obviously not a regional jet, more like a replacement for the 767 with more capacity (which of course is exactly what it is). I was surprised to see that ANA operates 787s from HND to KIX though. Can't figure out which variant they operate on those routes though.
I think Boeing should work on the IGW variant for the 787-10. That would make the 787-10 more comparative to the A350 and A330 giving airlines with an already sizeable 787 fleet an option to take on routes that they couldn't otherwise.
I flew this plane from San Francisco to Auckland in January 2021 on United, right before Covid. The 10 was a downgrade from the 777-300 United was using. It was comfortable on that flight. United even makes the journey from Chicago to Tokyo with the 10. It seems like enough range, but what do I know.
I feel a 787-10ER is necessary. It was only drumed up as a 777-200ER replacement. I think Boeing needs to live up to such a replacement. Also, giving it a bigger wing will help with range, and maybe making the GE90 standard.
The 787-10 has the same wingspan as the 787-9. Had the aircraft been designed with larger wings it would have a higher HGW. Air New Zealand is the one that would really benefit from a HGW 787-10, but Boeing has too many more pressing issues to deal with, so it will probably not happen, at least not for another 5-10 years.
The range of the Boeing 787-10 is of course a big issue. In short, in terms of sales, it lags far behind its competitor, the A350-900. Such a large sales gap is enough to prove that airlines prefer the A350-900, which is also highly fuel-efficient and has a longer range.
Yeah I don’t think either of those are priorities right now. Getting the QC issues fixed with the MAX and getting the rest of the family certified is their main priority right now. Getting the 777X certified as well. I’m sure they’ll continue working on a -10ER sometime in the future.
The 787-10 is a great replacement for the A330 family and a great people carrier if range isnt an issue. It would make a great plane for asian carriers on regional routes
In fact, the positioning of Boeing 787-10 and Airbus A330 is different. Boeing 787-8 and Boeing 787-9 are the replacements of Airbus A330, while Boeing 787-10 is the replacement of Boeing 777-200 and directly competes with Airbus A350-900. However, the range of Boeing 787-10 is much lower than that of Airbus A350-900, so it completely loses in sales.
I've flown on a 787-10 twice. I had a major technical fault on both flights leading to a major delay on the way out and a diversion on the return. Need I say more.
A better analysis would have been to look at B787-10 and A350-900 operators. One example is SQ where they use the B787-10 for regional and A350-9 for long haul. This is because regional economics for the B787-10 is better than the A350-900 and the long haul economics of the A350-900 is better than the B787-10. Both United and EVA Air do not have A350s. So it's either between the newer B787-10 or an old B777-200. Obviously, B787-10 wins.
I think if boeing could've produced 2 kinds of wing designs for boeing 787 one smaller and one bigger we we won't even need a 777x we would just need to make an even bigger varient of 787 which would sit between 777-9 and 787 10 and would probably crush it
Th 787X is really a plane just for United . Who will probably never use an airbus widebody . United has an aging 767 and 777 fleet , they were literally the first customer for both . The 787 is meant to replace every 767 and 777 except the 777-300er which will stay around in UA for another 2 decades . The 787-10 is meant to replace the domestic 777s which are as old as line number one (that’s the first 777 ever built ). United keeps an airplane for on average 28 years , so the original 777s are reaching the end .
60 more gallons to fly a bigger plane an extra 300 miles? Boeing is definitely lying lol. 5 mpg is more economical than a Aventator in beverly hills...
@arienoordzij3823 It's to replace the 777-200 in Boeing's commercial lineup, the 787-9 was too small and the 777-8 too big, as well as the fact that they needed to properly counter the A350-900. Fairly straightforward stuff.
@@josephaskins1996 Not really, since Boeing only sold 88 B777-200. Seems like a stupid move to me. Especially considering that A350-900 sold around 4x more than B787-10.
It is not a huge issue but it does make it less competitive compared to the A350-900. Most airlines would prefer a single plane that can do it all instead of having a 787-10 solely for shorter routes and some other plane for longer routes.
That article has a clickbait title obviously. Don't take it seriously. Boeing is making a huge mistake (again) by not taking into account of the most popular 777 variant, 777-300ER replacements. Currently an airline can choose from Boeing either a larger or more expensive 777X, or 787-10 with less range. On the other hand, A350-1000 perfectly fits as 777-300ER replacement with a better price than larger, difficult to fill 777-9, and with better efficiency than 777-8. A 787-10IGW could change this, but extra 430 nm might not be enough.
787-10 is more 777-200 size. A350-1000 is decent alternative but it lacks the cabin width to accommodate 10 abreast seating comfortably like 777-300 does so there is a disadvantage there.
There are some minor problems with your answer. First, the Boeing 777-300ER has a direct substitute, the Boeing 777-8X, which directly competes with the Airbus A350-1000. The real problem for Boeing is that they did not consider the substitute for the Boeing 777-200, which is a product that competes with the Airbus A350-900. This makes them completely lose to Airbus in this level of products.
@David-XWB I already said that 777-8 is a replacement for 777-300ER, but: 777-300ER: $375M 777-8: $410M How many airlines will pay $35M more for the same capacity considering that A350-1000 is "just" $355M (minus discounts)?
@@user-yt198 That's exactly why I say that B777-8x is completely failure product. In fact, the order volume of 778 is less than 779, and much less than A35K. I completely agree with you.
This plane sucks. It can hold more pax and cargo than the -9 yet has the same MZFW and MTOW as the -9. Don't know why Boeing even made this plane. the A350-1000 is a far better aircraft performance wise than this heap of junk.
You got it wrong. First of all, the 787-10 doesn't compete against the a350-1000. Boeing designed the 787-8 and 787-9 as the successor of the 767. Later, some companies like singapore airlines want a bigger 787 for their medium haul flights (essentially in Asia and Australia). If airliners want more, there is the 777X
In case of KLM, well that is kinda their speciality. But it does show that the 787-10 has sufficient range even for an airline like KLM with its network.
Nearly a decade ago, KLM actually switched six of its 787-9 orders for 787-10. And since then, KLM only ordered 787-10. Total fleet will be 13x 787-9 and 15x 787-10.
But the interesting part is that for the 777-200ER and 777-300ER replacement, KLM opted for the A350-900 and A350-1000. So they still need more range for their really long range destinations. Even 787-9 didn't cut it for that and KLM seemed to have been done waiting for the 777X.
KLMs choice of A350 was mainly due to unavailability of Russian airspace and the A350 economics were better. And apart from that, Boeing wasn’t able to offer earlier delivery slots and Airbus was. Otherwise just getting more 787s made logical sense for KLM.
For NA carriers it seems like the 787-9 is doing just fine with United to Singapore, AC to Singapore etc.
I think their 787s air mainly A330 replacements. People always misunderstood and put 787 against A350 when the rival of 787 is really the A330. It makes perfect sense that KLM replaces their 777s with A350 since the A350 has very similar capabilities with the 777, while 777x is a tad too big and I often think 777x is basically a 2 engined 747-400
@@FilipusWisnumurti KLM replaced their 747s with 787s. They are replacing their A330s and 777s with the A350.
@@DanielWW2 Yes because those 744s were actually 747-400M combi aircraft so their passenger carrying capacity probably is not far off of the 789 despite being much bigger
I think had Boeing designed wings and bigger fuel tanks for the -10, it would be appealing for customers. Boeing ended up using the same wings that are used on the -8 and -9
Airbus did that with its A380, it built the original released version with bigger wings than necessary as it anticipated the larger A380 minor model to eventually become the most appealing, as is often the case with new airplanes (bigger always seems to be better). Oops, bad timing due to the public's preference for point to point flying in lieu of hub and spoke. And the rest is history...
I guess I can say Ive flown on the longest 787-10 route for December 2024, there was a full flight of 318 pax on the ORD-HND flight on that particular day, it seemed like there was a full load of cargo, though of course I cant be certain. Its interesting to note that United has more Pax on its 787-10s than Delta does on the similarly sized A350-900s, 318 vs 306. Personally, given its size I do think that long term this will be a factor on -10 sales figures, losing out to the aforementioned A350-900. As for the airlines currently operating or that have ordered the type? I dont think the current range is as big an issue for them, even Qantas has chosen to bring the type on despite their rather notorious, continued clamour for increased range on aircraft due to their geographic position. So if nothing else, the capacity and not insignificant range is definitely enticing some customers, and Boeing will eventually bring out a second generation of 787 variants that will likely include a -9 and -10 HGW variants, likely notated as ER, though when that will be remains to be seen.
Considering that the B787 is still not in profit, despite 1200+ deliveries, the 777X not likely to generate income until the late 2020s, the next generation of airforce one is loosing Boeing a fortune, development of a second generation 787 seems like a hard pill for shareholders to swallow. Are Boeing shareholders masochists or something.........?
@artrandy that's crazy to sell that many aircraft and still not be in profit then.
@@ablecdn1565 Well boeing doesnt get subsidies like airbus does from its government. Also boeing is forced to sign loss making contracts by its own govt. Thats the difference.
@@artrandy I worked at Boeing for 29 years. I have no idea how we made money. Giving deep discounts to entice buyers to choose us over Airbus, developing new airplanes with seemingly no payback, giving out generous bonus to all employees every year (especially executives, of course). It must be an accounting sleigh of hand, with depreciation write offs, stock buy backs, bank loans, cash flow magic, etc. Hopefully my retirement pension is exempt from a potential financial collapse. Fingers crossed...
@@sourabh7137
Both the A350 and A330neo were in profit years ago. That means any "subsidy" has also been paid back.
The vast US defense budget has come to the rescue of many US companies over the years, when other companies around the world have gone bust because of a downturn.
You're simply making excuses for Boeing........
I’m suprised that more Middle East and European airlines aren’t lining up for the 787-10. It seems like a perfect fit for most of them since they can get to most of their destinations from their hubs with very good fuel consumption.
B787-10 is often compared with B777-200 or 300(Non ER). I think that makes where this aircraft is located in market. Also retirement of classic B777 series is around the corner, which makes B787-10 more efficient than its predecessor.
And yet it doesn't sell as well as A330-300. Whilst A350-900, which have the same capacity as B787-10, sold almost 4 times more because of their higher range and payload capability.
@@nntflow7058 bla bla bla
@@nntflow7058 talk about a330 neo boy lmao
@@anggergalih3414 I know you're not educated enough to know this but 485 A330-300 was delivered after 2010. Which is 62.5% of the entirety of A330-300's backlogs. They are very young and new.
The replacement cycle won't be started until 2030. By then, the market would be split between A330-900neo and B787-9.
@@nntflow7058 Nope the 787-10 has more capacity than a350-900.
If 10 had same range as 9 it would have been game changer,
Yeah, I woul say that the market between A350-900 and B787-10 would be closer to 50/50. Currently it's around 79/21.
@@nntflow7058 The A350 competes against both the 787 and 777. And because it is between the 2 in size and capacity, I think the logical calculation of success of Boeing Vs. Airbus is the number of airlines purchasing and flying the A350 vs. the combined total of the 787 and 777. Having said this, the fact that Airbus can compete fairly successfully against two major models with one major model is very impressive.
@@williamlewandowski129 I don't get it. What does that have to do with my speculative comment?
@@nntflow7058 Perhaps my misunderstanding of your point...my point being that the 787-10 is not competitive directly and fully against the A350-900, as the -10 is a derivative with diminished range. And therefore would not ever gain 50/50 market share. But the 787/777 combo would have more market share than the airplane Airbus designed to go against both Boeing models.
if that is the case, it would be good enough to replace many B77W without airliners needing up upgrading to 779 or even A35W
I think there is a few issues with the -10. 1. The wing is not optimized for its size and weight. All 787’s share the same 60 meter wing. If Boeing were to say add a 64 meter design or a 68 meter design(with folding tips like the 777X) this would greatly increase efficiency and performance. 2. The lack of extra fuel tanks. With a larger wing and redesigned fuel tanks, it could carry more fuel for a longer range. And I think they should do what Airbus did with the A350-1000, and try to increase the max engine thrust for the GEnX, and Trent 1000. This would allow the aircraft to carry more weight or fuel, and have better performance.
Yeah i think the wing has maxed out for the -10.
I think it’s because the -10 is essentially only a stretched variant of the -9 with very few other changes. This variant isn’t an improved or upgraded version of the -9 like the 777-200LR for example. The LR was a truly upgraded version of the -200ER. It had upgraded more powerful engines, structural and aerodynamic improvements, updated avionics and additional fuel tanks. Boeing could’ve done this with the 787-10 but I’m assuming it came down to time and resources. At the time it came into service (2017), the MAX 8 was also coming into service and Boeing was more focused on that family which makes sense considering the MAX is a much bigger program for them.
@@FlyByWire1 I get what you saying but Airbus was able to upgrade the wing and engine of the A350-1000 while juggling the A321LR/XLR, And the A330NEO. I don’t se why Boeing wouldn’t be able to do it. Maybe like what Coby Explanes said in his video about the -10 might come true. He said that hoping might build a -10ER. It would have a higher profile wing, more powerful engines, and more fuel tanks
ANA is using 787-10 on domestic routes, JAL only 787-8 and -9. But then again, JAL flies A350-900 on domestic routes too, the demand must be very big.
JAL had 747s that carried 700 on domestic routes!
It was just for some airlines who wanna replace 777-200 but don't want to start another set of crew just for A350-900
And it's pointless buying am A350-900 if the intended flights are mostly under 5000nm
Wouldn't that make more sense to get 787-9?
It’s for United to replace the 777-200
That is stupid though. Boeing only sell 88 B777-200. So boeing trying to capture a very limited market. While A350-900 which have the same exact passengers capacity, sold almost 4 more times than B787-10 with their higher payload and range.
If Boeing had created more range and higher payload B787-10 from the get go. The market would be closer to 50/50 for this type of aircraft.
I mean looking at of the routes the united 777 200s do and there distances I think the - 10 is perfect for uniteds 777 200 fleet renual
The range of 6,000 nautical miles in most customer configurations for the 787-10 means the plane can cover the vast majority of long routes with no issues. In fact, it's right at the limit of a route like SFO-HKG. I do think Boeing is working on a 787-10ER variant with a range of around 7,050 nautical miles, and that could make it a perfect 777-200ER replacement; airlines like United and British Airways would buy at least 25 planes each to replace their aging 777-200ER fleets.
it can fly to anywhere in the US from Korea and Japan except for maybe ICN and ATL but that route has a high demand so even a 787-10 is enough to fulfill the demand on the route. Korean air and delta (joint venture partners) each have a daily service with 747-8 or 777-300 ER from KAL and A350-900 from Delta. All those aircrafts have more than enough range for that route.
Very interesting facts!
I'm due to fly on a long haul Turkish 787 soon and glad to see its the 789 variant returning on a Turkish 359.
The ER version, with redesigned wings would do wonders for the -10, but I'm afraid it might be a little too late. Like, where are the orders going to come from that'd make that type of investment worth it?
An ER would also require new engines. I haven't done the calc, but the ones used right now max at 81,000 and the -10 is already using 76,000. With an increased weight from bigger wings and fuel, probably reinforced gears, etc the plane is going to need more, around the 90,000's ballpark.
787 10 is a great plane
I think the -10ER would be a great investment for Boeing. It could allow the -10ER to more adequately replace the 777-200ER’s based off capacity & range (also allowing for more orders), allowing airlines like EVA and United to stretch out their route network further.
Due to the airspace restrictions in Russia KLM AMS-TPE service is not executed by 787-10 anymore. The longer route is about 11500km and up to 16:30h westbound. KLM uses 787-9 or 777-200
The 787-10 is sort of an A330-300 and 777-300 (regular variant) replacement, for carriers who want a regional/medium-haul. Singapore Airlines, Eva Air (future), ANA use this concept.
I think that one issue is that the same wing is used across every 787, being more specialised for the -9. Bigger wings just for the -10 Would be a great move. But I don't want a wing falling off my plane either
your comment was good until you told about wing falling
@planelover234 I had to 😅 rest assured I don't hate them. I even got a 787 on my pfp 😁
Was reading ur comment seriously until last line 😂😂😂
Yeah, A350-900 outsold B787-10 by almost 4x. And they have almost th same passengers capacity.
bruh lol
787-10 is suitable to fly Japanese carrier's short-haul widebody domestic flights(
Air Canada has quite a few 787-10s on order. Let's see where they fly it.
With reference to the beginning of the video, I think it's because back then launch customer Singapore Airlines uses the B78X for regional routes (with regional 2 class cabin) for flights up to 8 hours. SQ also uses some of its A359s in a regional configuration but with less economy seats. B78X is preferred for it's lighter weight compared to the A359 and therefore lower fuel burn. Both jets replace the A333s which were all retired during the pandemic.
Quite some inaccuraties in this video. KLM does not deploy the 787-10 on routes to TPE and GIG on a regular, only LAX sees regular KLM 787-10 service out of the mentioned routes. KLM operates a combination of 787-9 and 777-200ER to both TPE and GIG (Source: Flightradar24, KLM807 & KLM705). So this video does not provide a proper depiction of the usage of the 787-10. KLM actually uses their 787-10 predomanitely on routes like AMS-JFK / AMS-ORD / AMS-YYZ / AMS-DXB which are all around 7000km - 8000km route distance.
So, the fuel capacities of the 787-9 and -10 are exactly the same, and the MTOWs are also nearly identical despite the 787-10 being longer. Initially, I assumed that the 787-10 had the same amount of fuel because the wings were exactly the same size; the stretched fuselage of the -10 could increase weight, which increases fuel burn and so reduces range. But after watching this video, it sounds to me that the 787-10 is doing just fine. But I'm thinking about how American Airlines operates a fleet of 777-200ERs, averaging 23 years old. What will replace these jets? It seems the airline shows no interest in the Boeing 777X while at the same time giving up Airbus widebodies when American canceled its Airbus A350 order in 2018, retired its reliable A330s in 2020, and has not returned to the airline ever since. A 787-10ER or the rumored 787-10HGW could work for more airlines and help boost sales, just like what happened to the 777-200ER and -300ER over its original Non-ER variants.
I've flown United's ORD-HND 7810. Obviously not a regional jet, more like a replacement for the 767 with more capacity (which of course is exactly what it is). I was surprised to see that ANA operates 787s from HND to KIX though. Can't figure out which variant they operate on those routes though.
The oldest 787-8’s
I think Boeing should work on the IGW variant for the 787-10. That would make the 787-10 more comparative to the A350 and A330 giving airlines with an already sizeable 787 fleet an option to take on routes that they couldn't otherwise.
The Boeing 747SR could have been the regional jumbo.
I flew this plane from San Francisco to Auckland in January 2021 on United, right before Covid. The 10 was a downgrade from the 777-300 United was using. It was comfortable on that flight. United even makes the journey from Chicago to Tokyo with the 10. It seems like enough range, but what do I know.
I feel a 787-10ER is necessary. It was only drumed up as a 777-200ER replacement. I think Boeing needs to live up to such a replacement. Also, giving it a bigger wing will help with range, and maybe making the GE90 standard.
The 787-10 has the same wingspan as the 787-9. Had the aircraft been designed with larger wings it would have a higher HGW.
Air New Zealand is the one that would really benefit from a HGW 787-10, but Boeing has too many more pressing issues to deal with, so it will probably not happen, at least not for another 5-10 years.
The range of the Boeing 787-10 is of course a big issue. In short, in terms of sales, it lags far behind its competitor, the A350-900. Such a large sales gap is enough to prove that airlines prefer the A350-900, which is also highly fuel-efficient and has a longer range.
I think the 787-10ER and 737 MAX 10ER should be big priorities for Boeing
Maybe get the MAX10 certified, before 2029 or so 1st, and also get 777x certified in next 5 yrs. These should be top priority.
Yeah I don’t think either of those are priorities right now. Getting the QC issues fixed with the MAX and getting the rest of the family certified is their main priority right now. Getting the 777X certified as well. I’m sure they’ll continue working on a -10ER sometime in the future.
the range is impresive, however, with modern jets longer ranges are possible,
The 787-10 is a great replacement for the A330 family and a great people carrier if range isnt an issue. It would make a great plane for asian carriers on regional routes
In fact, the positioning of Boeing 787-10 and Airbus A330 is different. Boeing 787-8 and Boeing 787-9 are the replacements of Airbus A330, while Boeing 787-10 is the replacement of Boeing 777-200 and directly competes with Airbus A350-900. However, the range of Boeing 787-10 is much lower than that of Airbus A350-900, so it completely loses in sales.
The range isn't an issue, it's all the parts used that should have been scrapped.
"shorest"
(you guys screwed up the thumbnail)
Thanks for letting us know; it's been fixed!
BA restricts its range for the dash 10 due to having no cabin crew rest areas.
How come the -9 have higher range than the -8, despite having almost identical fuel capacity?
I've flown on a 787-10 twice. I had a major technical fault on both flights leading to a major delay on the way out and a diversion on the return. Need I say more.
Idk if it’s just me but on the 787 my ears are affected by the air pressure much more than any other aircraft
If it's not because of a problem during the flight, the problem to blame is more likely a lack of experienced technical personnel.
@blaa1459It should be less, because the 787 has a lower pressure differential compared to air pressure at ground level.
And I am a unicorn.
i have flown to moon twice this weeks
Just the fact that airlines can get it to fly transpacific says it has good long haul range. The Pacific is nearly half of earth's rotation wide.
When it's certified.
Star of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 and 2024. 15 years of 787 in 2024.
787-10 can still make the hop from ICN to anywhere in the US which is still impressive
A better analysis would have been to look at B787-10 and A350-900 operators. One example is SQ where they use the B787-10 for regional and A350-9 for long haul. This is because regional economics for the B787-10 is better than the A350-900 and the long haul economics of the A350-900 is better than the B787-10. Both United and EVA Air do not have A350s. So it's either between the newer B787-10 or an old B777-200. Obviously, B787-10 wins.
I think if boeing could've produced 2 kinds of wing designs for boeing 787 one smaller and one bigger we we won't even need a 777x we would just need to make an even bigger varient of 787 which would sit between 777-9 and 787 10 and would probably crush it
They are making it look like that the 787-10 has the same range as an EMB-110 lol.
every comment have hate for boeing in this aviation sector, deal with it not every airline have airbus only you backward thinking people
“Shorest Range”?
(Thumbnail)
Thanks for letting us know; it's been fixed!
Th 787X is really a plane just for United . Who will probably never use an airbus widebody . United has an aging 767 and 777 fleet , they were literally the first customer for both . The 787 is meant to replace every 767 and 777 except the 777-300er which will stay around in UA for another 2 decades . The 787-10 is meant to replace the domestic 777s which are as old as line number one (that’s the first 777 ever built ). United keeps an airplane for on average 28 years , so the original 777s are reaching the end .
60 more gallons to fly a bigger plane an extra 300 miles? Boeing is definitely lying lol. 5 mpg is more economical than a Aventator in beverly hills...
Yes . Range is a issue.. and yes all the bits need to stay on board.. boeing has a substandard product that can not be relied upon... its that simple
This plane feels like an afterthought.
Maybe I missed something in the video, but despite all the explanations and numbers given in the video, I still wonder why they built the -10 anyway!
@arienoordzij3823 It's to replace the 777-200 in Boeing's commercial lineup, the 787-9 was too small and the 777-8 too big, as well as the fact that they needed to properly counter the A350-900. Fairly straightforward stuff.
@@josephaskins1996 Not really, since Boeing only sold 88 B777-200. Seems like a stupid move to me. Especially considering that A350-900 sold around 4x more than B787-10.
787-10er otw
It is not a huge issue but it does make it less competitive compared to the A350-900. Most airlines would prefer a single plane that can do it all instead of having a 787-10 solely for shorter routes and some other plane for longer routes.
That article has a clickbait title obviously. Don't take it seriously.
Boeing is making a huge mistake (again) by not taking into account of the most popular 777 variant, 777-300ER replacements.
Currently an airline can choose from Boeing either a larger or more expensive 777X, or 787-10 with less range.
On the other hand, A350-1000 perfectly fits as 777-300ER replacement with a better price than larger, difficult to fill 777-9, and with better efficiency than 777-8.
A 787-10IGW could change this, but extra 430 nm might not be enough.
787-10 is more 777-200 size.
A350-1000 is decent alternative but it lacks the cabin width to accommodate 10 abreast seating comfortably like 777-300 does so there is a disadvantage there.
There are some minor problems with your answer. First, the Boeing 777-300ER has a direct substitute, the Boeing 777-8X, which directly competes with the Airbus A350-1000. The real problem for Boeing is that they did not consider the substitute for the Boeing 777-200, which is a product that competes with the Airbus A350-900. This makes them completely lose to Airbus in this level of products.
@David-XWB I already said that 777-8 is a replacement for 777-300ER, but:
777-300ER: $375M
777-8: $410M
How many airlines will pay $35M more for the same capacity considering that A350-1000 is "just" $355M (minus discounts)?
@@imeverywhere9633 "comfortably" ?? :)
@@user-yt198 That's exactly why I say that B777-8x is completely failure product. In fact, the order volume of 778 is less than 779, and much less than A35K. I completely agree with you.
This plane sucks. It can hold more pax and cargo than the -9 yet has the same MZFW and MTOW as the -9. Don't know why Boeing even made this plane. the A350-1000 is a far better aircraft performance wise than this heap of junk.
You got it wrong. First of all, the 787-10 doesn't compete against the a350-1000. Boeing designed the 787-8 and 787-9 as the successor of the 767. Later, some companies like singapore airlines want a bigger 787 for their medium haul flights (essentially in Asia and Australia). If airliners want more, there is the 777X
Nice comparison Einstein...350 1 vs 787 1...
It's true real competitors are the 330 neo variants..