Air New Zealand orders 8 x GEnX Boeing 787-10s
 

Good news for our Kiwi cousins.

I hate to admit it but the A350 from all accounts is a better aircraft than the B787.

Shame, Air NZ used to put the customer first, not the beancounters.

See Leigh and Little Napoleon, it isn't that hard after all!

In building and maintaining their narrative Fort Fumble ignore Air New Zealand, for despite Qantas' scale advantage they are deficient in leadership.

Really ..... when was that?

The announcement included "conversion rights" for different versions of the 787.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the orders / options got converted to the same type as QANTAS "Project Sunrise", provided that goes to Boeing. Even if that's a 777 derivative rather than a 787.

Just my $NZ0.02 ;)

Good choice to free up -9s to replace the T7, but in no way does a -10 have a better range. This in fact was one of the drawbacks in the selection process, the -10 is essentially unable to reach the US...

Totally. The -10 looks well suited to the Asian market, and will free up the -9s. (not forgetting of course that any of the -10s are swappable to -9s in this order.)
Not to mention the mythical "code 3" aircraft with reduced seating and IGW/fuel...

yep, another f. up by alpa about to happen.

a321's (near 767 size) flown now on a320 money. 787-9's near 772 size flown considerably cheaper. lets see how much claw back they get with the 787-10's.

Ouch! Tough audience...
You've even answered your own issue. Everything's pretty easy in hindsight. The reasoning was sound, the "family" rate at the time was reasonable (better than, regionally), and arguably the NEO is a new type altogether...
Good thing the pay-rates are based on a payload/range equation and not just weight I guess. 40 more seats, 15% more cargo volume...
It's unlikely a 330 seat aeroplane will be replaced with a 440 seat one in any case (that, and a 777-900 doesn't exist), so more likely a 777-8 is the machine. Again, payload to the rescue...

Looks like there'll be plenty of volunteers for ALPA negotiations, and that can only be a good thing.

That's kinda my point. At the time it was the right decision, in hindsight, it backfired spectacularly.

Understand this, so curious how it'll work out. The -10 has more "Volume" available but less weight available being heavier than the -9 with the same MTOW, and less range (book figures). Wait and see I suppose, we haven't agreed to a 787 Family rate so the -10 will be negotiated separately.

Since you enquired, there are a number of points of difference for a supposed 'end of line' carrier. Firstly, was Rob Fyfe. Every now and again, along comes an airline executive who is a consistent force to ensure the biggest team in the world tends to all head in the same direction.
Mr Fyfe ensured that he and other senior executives regularly went and worked on the front line. From baggage and check in, the feedback from non-KPI preserving managers paints a very different picture to those actually engaged in the job. That goes a long way to gain trust.
Little Napoleon could not, without a security detail, venture very far from his safely entrenched office. Frank Lorenzo had similar structures at Continental Airlines and Gordon Bethune removed them all. The pilots at Southwest bought Mr Kelleher a motorcycle.
That may not resolve issues of 'labour unit cost' but it sure helps that the CEO is approachable and takes the time to communicate.

However, alas for Little Napoleon;

Air New Zealand also retired the last Boeing 747 in 2014, stating;

CEO Luxon stated (paraphrasing) that the disposal of that aircraft was responsible for a very large improvement in their operating expense, margin improvement, ultimately reducing the fuel included CASK substantially.

That Air New Zealand is ignored when Little Napoleon exclaims how well Qantas does is testament to what good airline managers quietly do: Run an efficient, strategically disciplined and focused airline.
Qantas prefers developing social discourse and column inches in the daily rags.

During the development of the 787, there was a specific requirement to make the engines 'plug and play' - that the engines and pylons could be switched between GE and Rolls with no aircraft changes needed (aside from perhaps updating some software). This was completely new - previously Boeing aircraft were so tailored to specific engine type that changing engine types was not economically viable - too many aircraft changes were needed. However it was seen that being able to readily swap engine types might help the resale value so the desire to make it available for the 787. To the best of my knowledge it's never actually been done through.
If this is true, it will be a massive blow to Rolls Royce - and by connection to Airbus since they're Rolls only for both the A350 and A330 NEO.