A (3:14)

Oh boy, do we have a lot to unpack. Okay, for starters, around 500 orders for a wide body aircraft is incredible. No matter. The manufacturer used to be able to launch an entire program off of effectively 400 orders at the end of 2025. Boeing ended the year with 13677 10s delivered and 330 more to go. That is, of course, before Delta. I think it's worth giving a small history lesson on the origins of the Dash 10. The Dash 10, which was first launched at the Paris air show in 2013 with orders from BA, Singapore, United Air Lease and GECAS that led to the airplane going into obviously full development. And it first flew in March of 2017. The 78710 was not part of Boeing's initial primary family plan when the jet was launched a decade earlier and really started popping up around 2008, just as they were rolling to a lot of the program delays. But it wasn't until after the 787 entered service that Boeing began ramping up production and delivering airplanes at volumes that they really started to want to talk about a big new variant. Again, that is the Dash 10. And really, in a constrained world where there aren't more gates and there aren't more runways, more seats per departure is the way to go.

B (4:32)

I love a John Ostrower airplane history lesson, but am I getting this right? This is pretty much just a stretch of an existing aircraft, right? So you get 30 to 40 more seats, but otherwise it's kind of the same. So it must have been pretty cheap to make, relatively speaking.

A (4:50)

Relatively speaking, yes. But the 787, no matter the model, is still an expensive airplane. Composite airplanes with the technology that Boeing has under the skin is not cheap. But look, manufacturers love to stretch their airplanes because of the relative marginal cost against the ability to sell an airplane with more seats. Think about 400,000 to $500,000 a seat as a rough rule for how much an airplane actually goes for to airlines that means 30 to 40 more opportunities to generate revenue for airlines and for Boeing to sell a higher priced airplane. But yes, the 78710 is a quote simple stretch of the dash 9. One more lesson for our listeners when we simple, what do we mean? Well, a simple stretch is when an existing aircraft structure, and I'm generalizing here, is maintained when only the fuselage is extended. Maintained is the key word here because the 779 and dash 10 at the outset had the same maximum takeoff weights. The goal here, as we noted, was to add more seats on the airplane compared to the Dash 9. That airplane, as Brian rightly noted, can fly Perth to London, San Francisco to Singapore, 1617 hours incredible endurance. It's a brochure range for the Dash 9 of north of 7,500 nautical miles for the 787 10. However, that meant that while the engine thrust and structural capability of the airplane remains the same, that 18 foot longer fuselage meant you could fit 30 to 40 more passengers, their bags and belly cargo. But here's the catch. Think of maximum takeoff weight as a cup that you're not allowed to overfill. That's made up of various ingredients. And I'm going to massively oversimplify here because there are a myriad of different weights that are important to aircraft design. But those different ingredients go into the cup and they're layered to fill up to the brim. Broadly speaking, the 787 dash 9 and 10 have the same size cup, but in the case of the Dash 10, it's filled with more airplane. That's in the form of a longer fuselage, all the structure, seats, extra catering, everything that comes along for the ride. So that leaves less room for, yes, you guessed it, fuel while carrying those 30 to 40 additional passengers and cargo. In short, and again, massively oversimplifying, you can't fly as far with a 10 as you can on a 9. About 6300 nautical miles, or 1200 less than the dash 9. Quick side note, on my side note, an optimized stretch is an aircraft like the 7879 while having the same outer shape, aside from the longer fuselage from the Dash 8, it's really designed with much greater weight and structural capabilities, engine thrust to fly even farther than the Dash 8. Yes, less range for the Dash 10 but a small bump in total trip fuel consumption about 7 percentage points over the dash 9. From what I understand from Boeing's own projections, that's for the heavier airplane, which means obviously burning more fuel. But this is an aircraft that can spread those costs over those 30 to 40 more seats. So you get an absolute beast on cost per seat, which are about 6 percentage points better than the Dash 9 from what I understand from those who have done the analysis.

B (8:00)

John, I hope that when you go to cocktail parties in Seattle and regular people ask you about your opinions of the Dreamliners, you give them such a detailed answer because that is a treat. I learned a ton from you right there.

A (8:11)

This kills at the Seattle aerospace cocktail party circuit. I just. Let me tell you, let me tell you.

B (8:16)

All right, so John, let me see if I've got it here. The original Dash 10 was more about moving people medium distances at very low cost than anything else. But what about this next batch of aircraft that the North American airlines seem most excited about? What do we make of these Alaska, United and Delta orders, plus Air Canada being really stoked about these airplanes that it's getting very soon? Did the airplane get better from the way it was six, seven years ago? I keep hearing about the IGW or what they call increasing increased takeoff weight version. Is this thing going to be even more efficient? Will it fly farther? What's the deal?

A (9:00)

Well, I think this hits on the timing, like why the this boom for the 10 is happening now. The 10 has been a decent seller for Boeing. About 20 or so of the 787s deliveries last year, which was which numbered 88. So what started as a West Coast, Pacific or East coast transatlantic operation airplane can now start to really stretch its legs with some really important coming upgrades. 2026 is a big year for Boeing because they finally aim finally, finally to get FAA certification for this increased MTAU version of the 7879 and minus 10, often called the IGW, the increased gross weight model. Effectively, Boeing has increased the size of the cup so the structure can carry more fuel to extend the range with the same payload or carry more payload on the same route. In the case of the 10, the MTOW maximum takeoff weight goes up by 14,000 pounds. That's 574,000 pounds for those listeners who like imperial weights and 260.3 metric tons for the rest of the world. That allows what Andrew Nucella at United told me a few years back was going to enable Chicago to Tokyo year round with a dash 10 with a full belly of cargo or Air New Zealand also with a full belly of cargo. From LAX to auckland. That extra 14,000 pound bump is promising ultimately 430 more nautical miles worth of of range.

B (10:21)

So this is pretty exciting news. For these airlines, a lot of them in North America, but also in other places in the world that want to fly long distances with these airplanes. But what about the original target market? What I found was the Dash 10 found pretty good customers in three different regions. Europe, the United States, and then also Asia and the Middle East. And I think that's because the existing airplane is a pretty good people hauler on shorter transatlantic routes. So routes that KLM and BA and United are doing, but then also on regional routes in Asia, it's been very popular for ana, Singapore and eva. And then also in the Middle east where we see Etihad fly it on some shorter stage lengths. But once you give this airplane more capability, does it change which airlines want it?

A (11:17)

I think it certainly does. Especially when you think about the Dash 10 as a replacement for older widebodies, like in the case of United and the 777277200 er. There are some big questions hanging over those fleets right now. Given their age and persistent engine shortages as of late, and an FAA deadline for 2028 for a required blade design for the Pratt engines. United is exercising its conversion rights, which are a very normal course of having an aircraft order to Dash 10s. They're setting up the Dash 10 certainly looks like to fill the role of the 767, the smaller triple 7s, which will all be replaced by 787s of various flavors. And speaking of aging wide bodies, if you look at Boeing's own performance comparison on a 3,000 nautical mile trip, you've got a difference of about 30 percentage points of relative fuel consumption between the 767 400er, which came out in the early 2000s, and 7 8, 7 10. That airplane, of course, is only flown by two airlines, United and Delta. The 78710 is a worthy successor there. But I think getting to the core of your question is this does start to bleed over into other larger wide bodies and what they can do.

B (12:30)

But then at the same time, I presume that, you know, the Singapore Airlines is a big operate of this airplane, but it's operating them within Asia. So is eva, so is ana. As the airplane gets more capability, that becomes less of a target market. Right. Unless you can persuade those airlines that they want the longer range airplane.

A (12:48)

Well, Singapore in particular has ordered the 777 9. They're eagerly waiting for that airplane.

B (12:55)

Aren't we all, John?

A (12:57)

Yeah, indeed. And they'll be one of the early operators of the 7779 when it's ready on Boeing's latest timeline, set to be in 27 now. But Eva actually flies the 78710 to Seattle. So you have a lot of flexibility both in like, as you noted, regional markets in Asia, but also Trans Pacific, quote unquote, short haul, that 4,500 nautical mile flight rather than a 6,000 nautical mile flight. But you had a great piece in the Airline observer late last year on air Canada's Dash 10 strategy and why they're excited to get the airplane. Walk us through why they're so excited on this one.

B (13:33)

I would love to, John, for a few reasons, one of which, you know, I like to talk about what goes on inside the cabin and you talk about the aerospace angle. So when I talk to Air Canada about this airplane, for them, it's about monuments. I know there's a lot of industry specific lingo in this business, but I think that that word might be my favorite. So our listeners probably know this stuff. But a quick refresher. A monument in an aircraft cabin generally ref to anything besides seats that passengers or flight attendants might use. So overhead bins, galleys, lavatories, and of course, the dividers between cabins. You need all that stuff on any airplane. But here's the thing. Monuments don't make money. Seats do. So Air Canada Chief Commercial Officer Mark Gallardo told me that the dash 10 fuselage is is a cabin designer's dream because it gives an airline lots of ways to place monuments without losing seats. So we talked about this specifically as it comes to the business class cabin. Premium is very popular right now. But to add enough business class seats to satisfy demand in a lot of markets on a widebody airplane, airlines often have to put some seats in front of door one and then some sort of mini cabin behind it. Sometimes it's the other way around, but whatever. Just as an aside, John, as travelers, we love the mini cabin, right? Because you get served faster and it's quieter. But that's not what this podcast is about today. So I never really thought much about the economics of the mini cabin. But we all know that every square centimeter matters on the airplane. And Gallardo told me that the mini cabin was wastes space. Not much, but it does. So what he told me you would rather do on any airplane is you would end business class before door two because door two is a natural divider. And then you put premium economy after that. Actually, Air Canada does that, I think, on its Dash 9s, but doesn't get that many business class seats between door one and door two. So he told me, quote, the real estate between door one and door two is the most valuable real estate in the industry. On the Dash 10, Air Canada is planning to put 42 business class seats in that zone. Maybe not enough for United, but a really great number for Air Canada. And so I pressed them a little bit on whether this was like a material change, whether it really showed up in the numbers. And he said it does. So he said, quote, the details show up in the margins.

A (16:24)

Did you tell you how they actually plan to use the airplane?

B (16:27)

Oh, you want to know things beyond what's going on with cabin design and Lopez? I didn't know there was anything else that mattered in the airline world. Yeah, yeah. Of course, John Gallardo really likes the range of the airplane. So we've seen at United the existing Dash 10 is mostly a transatlantic airplane, although I've seen it at times fly from Los Angeles to Tokyo. Vancouver is a little bit closer to Asia than California, as we know. But Gallardo told me that he is really excited for the IGW's extra range so he can fly it as far into Asia as he would like to take advantage of the extra seats. So he told me he expects it to be able to go about 500 to 600 nautical miles farther than the older version of the airplane. And he told me that he thinks it can work from Vancouver to Hong Kong. And he also highlighted the freight potential of the airplane. He called it, quote, one of the better cargo aircraft that I've studied. He is the president of Air Canada Cargo as well, and I know that's a job he takes very seriously. I love cargo nerds. They're a little bit different than airline nerds, but very eccentric nonetheless.

A (17:39)

I have a not so secret love of air cargo. We need to do a whole episode on that.

B (17:43)

We absolutely should.

A (17:44)

Indeed. So Air Canada has always done really, really well with its 777 300ers. And so if you think about comparing the 300er to the Dash 10, there are only two fewer cargo container positions in the forward bay of a dash 10 and two fewer in the aft belly cargo hold compared to the 300er. So that's 40 versus 44 total. Pretty darn close.

B (18:11)

Yeah. I'll just point out one other thing about Air Canada. For them, it's still a niche airplane. They've only ordered 14. It's going to solve some problems for the airline. They're very excited about the economics of the airplane. But Gallardo told me that he still has some thick destinations where he needs A low chasm and large airplane that has even more range. And the dash 10 is not going to be that airplane. That one, he said, might have to be the A350 1000 or the 777X.

A (18:44)

Yeah, and if anyone caught the Prime Minister of Canada's speech this week at Davos, I think geopolitics might push that in a given European direction. Okay, yes, the 78710 is not that airplane when it comes to the range you need. But I think there is, there is still healthy daylight between the A350 1000 and also the 900, given the payload range combination of both of those airplanes and the reality of geopolitical airspace restrictions and the desire for those long range routes, not to mention Airbus's ability to now deliver both of Those airplanes with 10 abreast seating, given a change that they've made to the airplane recently. But really for Boeing, the 777X's push into 400 plus seats. And that long range that it has, it really is just a different market. But you can kind of see how this is getting segmented here. However, this also gets to the heart of the challenge for the 777X. And how do you replace the 777 300er, which is still arguably a view that many hold, including myself, that it is the best widebody airplane ever fielded by Boeing or Airbus, bar none. But here's the kicker. The 777 300ER, a smaller airplane, replaced the 747 400. And the 78710 is set to take the 777300 yard role in many cases. No, airlines don't need the range. I do, however, have a distinct memory of Steven Udvar Hazy telling me years ago, and I'm paraphrasing here, if you have to carry 300 people 3,000 nautical miles, would you rather do it with 150,000 pounds of thrust or 230,000 pounds of thrust? He was talking about the engine thrust difference between the 78710 and the 777 300ER and its GE90 engines. This is straight physics, and on economics, the lighter 787 wins every time.

B (20:38)

That's very interesting. Before we go, we have received a couple of interesting comments about last Week's episode about JSX and the ATR42, and I wanted to discuss them here. Our listeners are very smart and they point out things we fail to mention. One of these people is involved in some excitement in Carlsbad, California A wealthy spot near San Diego. Recently, some residents sued the airport for allowing new jet flights. Among other things, they don't like the noise that these flights are going to bring. United and American have been planning regional service there. So this person wrote to us. I would bet there is quite a bit of overlap between JSX customers and people that live near small airports with FBOs and people who do not like airport noise. I cannot imagine the snooty NIMBY crowd is going to be excited about turboprops. I don't know if NIMBY is a worldwide acronym, so I think it stands for not in my backyard. Right, John?

A (21:46)

Indeed. These are people who love airports and airport noise. That's of course deep, deep sarcasm. For the record, ATR says the external noise for the ATR 72, which is the bigger of the two aircraft, is 14.1 decibels lower than a regional jet and 8.8 decibels lower than the International Civil Aviation Organization Chapter 14 noise limits. So the data certainly points to a quieter footprint. But NIMBYs tend to never be satisfied when it comes to airplanes and they're just general existence.

B (22:22)

Since when have facts mattered in the United States?

A (22:25)

John, I'm just going to quietly weep to myself over here.

B (22:29)

For our next letter we have a note from another listener named Brett who writes to us from a Mexican beach somewhere. I read this note. I thought this listener is a little full of himself to be honest. But he does know the Hawaii market better than I do. And I had noted that maybe Alaska Air Group should at least look at the ATR to connect markets in Hawaii to replace the 717. It is not looking at that airplane. So Brett wrote good episode this week. My passport has enjoyed being used. I will say on ha. No way they go atr. Big airports have to be served by mainline in the pilot contract, so it's too few seats to justify labor cost. Also, there aren't enough small airports to justify having a fleet for. For just those I say. Good point Brett. And we're excited to have you back next week.

A (23:28)

This is why I miss Brett. Because there's always a perspective and a nuance that, that we didn't consider. This is a three man ship. I love doing this show with you Brian, but like look, this is the three Amigos here.

B (23:39)

But he is a little full of himself, right?

A (23:40)

Yeah.

B (23:45)

You've been listening to the Air Show. If you have suggestions or questions for us, or if you're interested in sponsoring the podcast, go to our website theairshowpodcast.com to get in touch.

A (23:55)

Leo Duran produced and edited this episode. Our theme music is by Joshua Mosher. Thanks for listening and we'll be back soon.