east_west

Seems possible that they could eventually have two 787-10 configurations since they have 23 on order total which is a fairly large fleet.
There are 12 A330s without PE which the 787-10s were intended to replace for dense regional Asia routes. PE isn't needed for these routes.

Maybe some of the remaining 787-10s would include PE and be used for SEA/YVR, Oceania, and European routes all of which are in range for 787-10. UA has regular 787-10 service on SFO-AKL which is 5663nm (almost exactly the same as SFO-TPE) and longer than all of EVAs existing routes except for LAX/YYZ/ORD/IAH/JFK.

It seems strange that they aren't using the 787-9 for its best purpose which is thin ULH routes like IAD/BOS.

gengar

But again, you can't compare the routes just on great circle distance. SFO-TPE has far more issues with headwinds, especially in the winter. I posted in this thread before that during the winter, headwinds can add nearly 1,000nm to the air distance traveled SFO-TPE.

It's the same reason why AI flies a near-polar TATL path SFO-DEL but a TPAC path returning DEL-SFO even though there is a huge disparity in the flight plan distance - because the winds play a far greater factor than the additional distance.

Just look at the historical flight times for UA917 (SFO-AKL) vs say BR17. They're not comparable at all in the winter, even if the great circle distance seems similar.

coolfish1103

For just Seattle and Vancouver? The rest won't work with 787-10. Headwinds for the pacific is strong enough to make SFO not work during the winter, not sure about SEA. They can use the 787-10s for Europe and Oceania.

On top of that I am not sure the passengers in Seattle and Vancouver are happy with the changes. These long haul to NA need Premium Economy cabin.

east_west

UA announced 787-10 on LAX/SFO-PVG (https://www.routesonline.com/news/38...from-dec-2019/). LAX-PVG is almost equivalent to SFO-TPE from range and wind perspective.

On this thread (https://www.airliners.net/forum/view...20803&start=50) a UA pilot stated:
"UA198 LAX-PVG has a flight time around 13:20, in the winter flight time can climb as high as 14:20. Using our current longest nonstop flight and flight time for a UA 787-10 which was almost at capacity today as a reference point I don't see why UA's 787-10 with a total of 318 passengers could not fly LAX-PVG with a full passenger cabin and at least 25,000 - 30,000 pounds of cargo daily."


That being said, SFO-TPE is BR's bread and butter and they need the most capacity (777-300ER) they can get on this route. And the UA 787-10 configuration is certainly less dense than EVA's current configuration, so BR would need a second less dense 787-10 config with PE.

Davvidd

Every time I have flown from YYZ to TPE the PE is full. I have not seen any flight that I have flown with more than three seats empty in PE.

east_west

Fear not, YYZ-TPE is safely out of 787-10 range ...

Now whether BR may want to downgauge YYZ to a 787-9 in the future is another question.

I do think PE is on the rise industry wide and BR invented this class of service in 1991. I don't see them flying much TPAC without it.

Davvidd

I have a question for the experts here. How would you compare the old business class to the PE in service? I don't necessarily mean for BR but in general? In the days of the DC 10 and the L1011.

gengar

... and that's below MTOW, which is my point - the quote you provided supports my argument. No one is questioning whether a 787-10 in some less-than-MTOW configuration can fly SFO-TPE, as it can certainly fly much, much further distances than even that. The question is whether a 787-10, regularly scheduled to operate under MTOW, fits somewhere into BR's TPAC business model.

coolfish1103

They might as well down gauge ORD to 789, but still need a mini size Premium Economy cabin for such a long flight.

Taking the 789s without Premium Economy is such a ??? in BR's decision as this plane is designed for long thin routes. For JL it may make sense since they are aiming heavily towards Premium Business pax, but BR has always been a Premium Economy pioneer.

bzcat

PIP and less dense configuration (PE cabin) will make TPE-SFO-TPE possible year round with 787-10 in my opinion. I can see BR scheduling mixed 77W and 787-10 in multiple daily service in all the west coast routes depending on seasonal loads and demands.

Gaikhao

The elimination of the premium economy cabin on some configurations reflects the intent of the aircraft use on its intra Asia flights. The overlap onto the YVR route is due in part because the aircraft will be used on those intra Asia routes as well. EVA has been feeling the heat of the mainland carriers and is responding to its operating reality. My understanding is that the Canadian passenger portion is one of the less profitable markets served, and that cargo is the profit center.
I remember when YVR was served by the combi B747 and the business class seats were the old loungers and it was a rather uncomfortable experience. The Canadian market is relatively insignificant for EVA as its growth and future for the next five years is the booming Asian travel market. Millions of mainlanders and Indians will take to the skies in the coming years dipping their toes into the local tourist locales. Meanwhile the western markets will most likely experience limited growth opportunities, especially North America which is teetering on the edge of economic readjustment. The future is Asian leisure travel, which is price sensitive, which is why 2 class is all that is needed. If the customers have the money, they will purchase the premium seat.

coolfish1103

In an operation perspective it's not cheaper for EVA to operate mix fleet of 787-10 and 77W in SFO. The crew rotations, cargo management (w/fuel restrictions), lack of Premium Economy seats and other...

flyingeverywhere1

they should really send one daily flight 787 to SJC