787-10 Is A Master Piece For Emirates

Below: is a copied article (excellent Boeing 101 class on the 787-10) which explains why the 787-10 beat the A-350 in a deal made with Boeing and Emirates late last year. It has yet to be booked by Boeing until all "deal" details are finalized. Probably during 2018.

Why did Emirates choose Boeing’s 787-10?

leehamnews.com/2017/11/15/emirates-choose-boeings-787-10/

November 15, 2017

By Bjorn Fehrm

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

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

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

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

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

Fuselage

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

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

Weight

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

This means: more fuselage surface area, more weight.

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

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

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

Drag

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

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

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

The rest of the aircraft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medium range versus Long range

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

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

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

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

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

Economic consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

What Drives The 797 Idea Cost, Cost Costs

Starting any conversation concerning the 797 has to begin with How much will it cost Boeing to Build the 797? The cost driver will locate the assembly point, design points and its suppliers. All which seem to reside near or in the USA. A mature infrastructure with trained engineers are required. A intact supply chain is a must. The big three happen to be in the Northwest corner of the US. Labor is the wild card for this project as the "Union" has a grip in Washington State. If the Union(s) can agree they will lock up the 797 for years to come. Boeing is waiting not on its customers to pull the 797 trigger but all is massive costly lose ends.

Most of those lose ends are already  resolved but a significant element is the labor quotient. Automation is labor's undoing. Boeing is automating the 777X and has dialed in the the work force component with the 787 program. Boeing is figuring out how many workers it will need and how many machines can be positioned for the manufacturer of said product. The Unions are here to stay in Washington state but the numbers can be mitigated by new processes. When 10,000 workers were needed during 1950 only a 1,000 are need today for the same production output. Boeing hopes to reduce that number into the hundreds as machines drill holes and place fasteners in  the process. Human hands are needed for stuffing and airplane body of all its wires, insulation and mechanical applications. Only time will give a complete snap together body connecting the parts which works into one snap. It will take only a few workers to finish the work in that future.

However, the 797 would only be half way there for a complete low cost high tech solution having precision beyond what a human can do. It just a matter of time before that happens. The 797 finds itself closing that gap because Boeing insist it will need to build 797 excellent enough and cheap enough at the same time. It will close the cost gap with plant, design and supplier innovation but it will need just enough people to build the 797. That is holding Boeing back until it figures the 797 costs component of the program.

If Delta Wants It The 797 Concept Is Ready

Many wonder when the 797 will come and what will comprise the 797. Delta Airlines has seen enough suggesting a freezing of the concept leaving only bloggers to imagine what Delta has seen and likes. Long has "Winging IT" gone with a dual aisle elliptical body. Perhaps the elliptical in its design is too much. That would cost Boeing more money than it is willing to fork out on another moon shot.

Delta probably agrees with a very slight oval body not even noticeable by a passerby. The point is a composite body and wings in a dual aisle fashion smaller than the 787 widths. A promise of an engine selection has been having been made by Boeing to either CFM or GE. It is a slight to Airbus and Rolls. The technology will be applied from already tested proven, and in-service advances. Delta doesn't care about Boeing messages sent to the competitor it only cares about how a 797 would make it more money. Delta is not brand-centric in its profit model, only to the extent of maintaining some fleet commonality making the fleet more efficient to maintain or customers depend upon. The 797 would have an opposite effect. Customers will clamor for a new gap filler aircraft and Delta's fleet would eagerly absorb a Boeing product with its other Boeing products already in use.

Therefore, a new class of aircraft from Boeing breaks all commonality rules and cancels the need for an "all" Airbus product in its line-up. In Fact, Delta is a Boeing customer already and a 797 could replace its aging 767's and develop new markets uniquely. Airbus does not have an answer to this for this Boeing proposal. 

Time to market is a critical element. Boeing will bring a 797 to market in under five years. Therefore, no experimenting with oddly shaped bodies.  The 797 may be a template for an all-new composite 737 Family of aircraft by 2030. Boeing would need an all-new 737 that would bring another 10% efficiency to the single-aisle marketplace by the 2030's. The 797 is that stepping stone for meeting a single-aisle aircraft remake.

The whole stopping point for grandiose thinking is hinged upon the engine for the 797 and that is something Boeing has drawn up for customers like Delta. The 797 will stand tall enough for accepting new engine concepts having larger diameters than a 68" Max engine. It will have a taller landing gear designed into its body. Something special is planned to hang under the 797 wing. which give room for future engine developments 50 years going forward. 
Delta Airlines is a smoke signal from for Boeing customers have been assembled for this 797 project.  Boeing is only waiting for the big announcement event at the Airshow calendar event. Farnborough is next. Airbus can only announce a paper idea as counter at this time. Boeing has its paper airplane. 

797 Demand Dooms Airbus Dominance

The overly complicated market model has the Airbus A-321 disrupting Boeing's market footprint from its nipping at the NMA market. Every Airbus A-321 order pushes Boeing to do something sooner rather than later. Boeing claims it needs more market research and customer feedback. Airlines are giving Boeing much-needed feedback already when every time an A-321 is ordered. It also opens the market window wider for an Airbus counter move. Airbus too is madly working in secret for an NMA counter punch and its A-321 is not that counter punch nor is its A-330. Boeing is committed to a lighter NMA body than an A-330 NEO. It also will hold many more passengers and fly farther than an A-321.

This alone indicates Airbus needs a clean sheet counter-punch for Boeing's impeding NMA announced offering. Boeing is concerned with getting this offering right for a broad base of customers who are publicly lining up as potential launch customers. There Qantas and Delta who have to open partnership with Boeing on what they want. There are GE and CFM who have a public expression as engine makers. There is plant space available in Charleston or Seattle areas competing for a Boeing manufacturing 797 production plant. 

Boeing has a target in mind for how many launch customers and unit commitments required for an announcement. Boeing is farther down the road when it says it needs more market data from potential customers, suggesting its just waiting for launch units numbers. China and the rest of  Asia remain silent on the matter. Taking all this into account one can easily see a 500 unit announcement for a Boeing 797. Some customers will convert prior orders into 797 orders. Delta has expressed a strong desire for the 797 NMA. This, of course, triggers United into an airplane buying mode. This, of course, triggers American into an airplane. Oops, repetition is the market data Boeing is looking for in search of 797 flattery.

China alone could order up to 250 797's for a regional grouping. North America could order up 250 797's as a North American response. Canadians are among us well. A great fit for Latin America premium fit. When looking for favored European customers starting with Norwegian Air and then Ryan Air. Air France will weigh in with 30 -50 orders. When the 737-10 was announced at its inaugural airshow there were so many conversions into a 737-10 model. In all about 200 737-10's were ordered. Possibly the 737-10 orders were dampened because of the 797 Boeing promise for the 797 by 2026, and the 737-10 is a time gap filler. It will be a long time before the 797 comes to market by 2026. Boeing waiting and waiting stretching Airbus patient. It wants a Boeing blueprint before following an NMA announcement. Boeing wants order numbers from Airbus customers as the linchpin pulled for a 797 announcement. It is waiting on Airbus fleet customers to sign on before announcing. India is one such Airbus customer. Note

• India’s Vistara may buy as many as 60 aircraft for expansion
• Singapore-Tata venture said to discuss buying A320, A330 NEO's

India Airbus customers could be stalling with ordering Airbus under the usual heading of in "negotiations" as it is also mulling over the 797 details with Boeing.  The 797-time gap to market may be too much for either Vista or Tata.

Airbus will offer a price these two may not be able to resist having a long Boeing wait time before first delivery becomes a  "too long wait" for either airline as it also would be an unlikely 797 Launch customers.

Finally, Airbus dominance in the single-aisle market will fade quickly once the 797 becomes available for a mid-range gap and "second tier" capable airports. Which happens to be the most numerous airport destinations available.

What is Known About Boeing's Black Hole

The Black Hole or known as the "NMA". Most people identify it as the New Medium Airplane. The 737 will fade into a pimple on the maker's cheek when it once was a beauty mole featured by every modeling front cover. The black hole, gap, or NMA is about to be studied by airplane aficionados. This study of looking past at success or failure will reveal how it affected the single aisle and dual aisle offerings from the 737 Max to the 787 Dream Liners .

Boeing's 797 NMA-797 is shown near NGC 1277 at about 5 light days from earth.

Boeing wants to avoid a Max or Dream nightmare when making a 797. It can't live without it or may dump money on it while creating a massive embarrassment. However, Boeing has the chops and customers for stopping the A-321 bleeding from its rival, as it too slashes Boeing with every sale of the A-321. Norwegian airline is a good example. It has bought a fleet of Airbus A-321's for crossing the the Atlantic from Europe. Boeing is suffering a split personality over the 797 concept. No guts no glory condition exists as it ponders the base of the cliff its about to jump towards with a new mystery ship of flight.

The Black hole's edge is measured in baby steps towards that abyss. A 737-8, then a 737 dash 9 followed by the 737-10, as Boeing edges inch by seat inch closer to announcing there is light at the end of the Black Hole tunnel. The gravity of it all increases as Boeing nears the NMA precipice of that awful black hole fondly called the "middle of the market" or MOM. 

Boeing will pull the trigger and jump since the weight of the matter is too much when hanging ten off the board on a primo market condition at high tide. All the hiding and symbolic gestures from Boeing Co. is for form points for the airline judges. Those numbers have been tallied by the judges and the black hole will be back-filled with a 797 soon. Boeing has run out of posturing statements and it now is hesitant to say anything further for fear of sounding ridiculous about something everyone already knows about. Boeing's next lame comment regarding a mystery program having a front office in Seattle Washington, awaits the next big dance at an airshow near the 51st parallel. A globe will solve the 51st parallel mystery announcing the 797.

Location-Location-Location: The 51st Parallel

January Boeing Order Count Slight of Hand

Boeing posted its order count for January 31, 2018. Missing are the 14 747-8F's ordered by UPS announced in January by press release and a mysterious 17 unit deletion for the 737 Max just after 17 Max were ordered at the end of January leaving one Max BBJ and 10 P-8's for military acquisition and totaling 11 units net for January (whew). It may not be correct regarding model disposition at this time, but Boeing had a confusing first month of 2018 and Winging It "hopes" to have it corrected by Boeing's own data. Below is the Order Chart with Boeing notations. Tell me if it doesn't work for you!

The 787-300 Mysteriously Turns Into A 797

Remember when Boeing thought it something going right when it offered the 787-300 only to promptly cancel that Idea and focus on the 787-8? The 787-300 was supposed to carry  about what a 797 would carry. It was supposed to fly what a 797 would fly. So What happened to the 787-300 as ANA only bought in on the 787-300 with 13 copies ordered. Like any fine wine the grapes are the same and the process of making alcoholic content is the same but what makes a great wine?  Time or in Boeing's case timing. The 787-300 concept was an abject failure partially because it flew just over 3,000 miles and airlines were enamored with 7,000 plus miles at the time. The 797 is promised with 5,000 miles. I would suspect it will go dual aisle like the 787-300. I also expect it will only go 7 seats across. It probably go 250 seats maximum while a 270 seater Boeing mentioned is a bridge too far for it is attempt at this time.

This ultimate gap filler would supplant any 757 aficionados or 767 die-hards with  medium airport fittings as high tech gap filler. Boeing learned some lessons during the early stages of the 787 stumbles. The 787-300 was non starter. The 797 is going to be what the 787 family couldn't be. It won't stretch to 337 passenger or fly just to 3,000 miles as Boeing once offered. But it will have two aisle because it has to not compete with the A321 NEO. It must define its own class better than what Airbus does for its customers with the A-321. Two aisle is that start that assures Qantas a fast turn around time under 35 minutes. Alan Joyce of Qantas came out of the Singapore Air Show with a big smile. Joyce will get his sunset aircraft with a gap filler to boot from Boeing. It will turn the far east on its ear so to speak and Qantas will be at the front of that line.

The Qantas order backlog with its 787-9's options will be turned into extra long range sunset busters during a Farnborough order book rally for the yet to be announced 797. The whole point is not Qantas or for Boeing's sales leader, Randy Tinseth but East Asia's market place. Qantas is grabbing  position on what will be a Boeing order onslaught. Airbus is waiting to see what happens first before it dives in with a counter punch. The A321 is too successful for an Airbus blink until the market reacts.

The 797 Is More Than A Gap Filler

Boeing's idea is for a gap filling 797 which bridges a market hole from single aisle to the 787 family of aircraft. Natural performance numbers suggests a 5,000 mile range and up to 270 passengers though I doubt it would push the upper passenger seats. In a sales pitch, it would sensibly promote around a 220-250 seat range. Alan Joyce who is looking at A320 renewals in its Qantas fleet with an addition of A321 NEO's is pushing Boeing to the breaking point for announcing a 797 offering sometime in 2018. I would still suggest Farnborough Air Show is the proper moment for the 797 announcement. It sounds sooner rather than later something is coming from the Boeing concept file.

Boeing cannot wait for another A321 NEO sale before it could announce a 797. It will have lost too much program thrust for its 797 take-off. A sensible projection is Boeing has a firm body and wing design in hand for its 797 gap filler. It also knows it will create synergy for mature programs from the 737 to the 787. It might even change Allan Joyce's mind about ordering A321 NEO's or replacing its vast fleet of A-320's by flipping to the 737 Max's. If Boeing gets Embraer it will also open the Australian door for 130 seats and below market coming from a Boeing/Embraer product. Airbus will be pushing Bombardier product on all its current single aisle customers.

The pressure is mounting on Boeing to pull the 797 trigger as it would lose further ground to Airbus if doing nothing. It needs the gap filler as a catalyst for other product in Boeing's own plans. Embraer commercial will be a Boeing partnership which will bring Boeing avionics to its aircraft matching Boeing's own single aisle avionics up through the 777X program. Alan Joyce is playing both Airbus and Boeing at this time. It claims a limit on its financial resources so any decision must fit its purchasing capability. That being said, Qantas is seeking an advantage with one maker over the other throughout its fleet. 

At the Singapore airshow, Joyce's favorable expressions towards Boeing only signals the game is not over yet. However, Boeing won't redirect its own offerings for just one customer like Qantas. Remember when Qantas ordered a boatload of 787's and then backed out later. Joyce remarked later, he is not yet convinced the 787 is an answer for Qantas having taken in 8 787-9's, which could just be leverage language for Boeing's position with Qantas. Even though he has been flying the 787-8's (11) with Jetstar, a Qantas subset. Joyce knows exactly what the 787 can do while saying "he is not yet convinced about the 787-9". It represents some kind of jet blast from Joyce at this time.  It is not likely he will flip Boeing for Airbus, but nothing is impossible in today's world of aircraft selling and buying. If Boeing announces the 797 this summer, then Qantas may renew its old A-320 fleet with the 737 Max, add the 797, and buy more 787-9's at a heavily discounted price from Boeing. This is all pre Farnborough posturing by Qantas. A big Boeing day is coming during 2018.   

Today UPS Bought 14 More 747-8F's

All along Boeing contended the life of the 747 depended on the freight business not passenger service for its future. Today, UPS helped the Boeing claim along buy cashing in its 14 options for the 747-8F. In 2016,  UPS ordered a staggering 14 747-8F's optioning for 14 more of its type. Today was a firming day for those option as the news reported. Whether it happened in January or February 2018 will soon be revealed in Boeing's monthly orders and delivery updates on its website.

What this means?  Is the topic of this short discussion. Boeing has factory capacity for four more years at a 6 a year 747 production rate. All those engineers can now update resumes and contribute towards its unemployment accounts before any near term lay-off occurs which now seems a distant thought on the factory floor. Boeing has four more years for finding more freight customers for its 747-8F's. Over time, the cycle will bend towards Boeing's freight business direction again as the world's economies ebb and flow the stock markets.

Boeing has bought time for its other programs. It has 747 engineers in its hip pocket for anything pending on future accomplishing. Plant capacity is held in reserve as it builds 28 more 747's. A call will be made by 2020 for launching something new as an always improving business model expands its portfolio towards a 777-10X or a 797 NMA. Booth those concepts are now waiting the competition out. It won't go first like it did with the 787. Airbus blinked with a A321-LR. But it is also holding cards as long as it wants as customer buy the A321 in a continuing flow. An observation for any gambler, is timing, once the horses are loaded at the gate. 

Boeing wants an Airbus A321 LR in test mode before it launches an NMA.  Airbus wants its rendition of an NMA springing from an A-330 down sizing, which will be drawn in a hurry going to to market as a Boeing beater. 

Its rapidly turning into a tit for tat airplane building world as Boeing spits at Bombardier and hugs Embraer in a fit. In this slug fest, "a customer" wants to end up as a winner with better products and mechanisms for beating its own competition. The passenger just wants a seat that can hold 190 lbs in comfort. The 17" wide affair is for third world sensibilities, where blue collar working travelers are faced with recline issues and no wifi. The shoulder roll works only for 90 minutes in a 10 hr flight. Colored lighting is a small benefit for contortionist who insist on flying to Singapore and back to LA.

Airports Need A Theme Park Mentality

Can every airport or hub become a "Pirates of The Caribbean" ride? And... what's wrong with that?

For your airfare you gain access to the airports pavilions, food court's and "rest areas". Want to stay the snow storm? No problem as there may be sleeping hovels with showers included just past the TSA gate. Early attempts on club lounges for first class passengers was on  the right track. Also known as Sky Lounges. The next great hub will amaze travelers with shops and entertainment venues dotting the concourses near your airline gate. 

Imagine a two hour-lay over interrupted by a final boarding announcement over the PA system. Not to worry, an airport concierge has your GPS location  and vibrates the heck out of your wrist just fifteen minutes before take-off warning. Its time enough to pull away from your entertainment venue and go straight to the boarding line only feet away from what ever entertainment preoccupying your senses.

Its not all fantasy yet, but it will appear at the next airport renovation, centered on passenger pallets who are walking with credit cards.There are so many ideas pioneered by Disney, Six Flags or Universal who may opt-in for treating airport prisoners with a plethora of food, fantasy, and fun functions. Its just a matter  of time for making the Airport hub the destination along the way. In fact an all-nighter lay-over becomes the point.