Beauing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2741 times:
Coninenetal uses the 757-200 to fly routes like Newark to Hamburg. So I'm wondering if it's feasible to use the 3500 nm range 787-300 on trans-Atlantic routes?
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2698 times:
I believe that before all is said and done, the 783 will have a longer range, because despite Boeing's claim that they know what customers want and 3500nm is it, it isn't selling too well and it is probably due to range. 4000-4500nm would be much more functional.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2677 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2): I believe that before all is said and done, the 783 will have a longer range, because despite Boeing's claim that they know what customers want and 3500nm is it, it isn't selling too well and it is probably due to range. 4000-4500nm would be much more functional.
Once we get up to about 4500nm routes, the B787-8 is quite efficient. There are shorter routes where 3500nm is amply sufficient. TPE-HKG for example is 436nm and is served by 41 daily nonstops -- all widebodies and many B747s. SIN-CGK is 475nm and is served by 20 daily nonstops -- nearly all widebodies. The B787-3 is perfect for routes like these.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21041 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2644 times:
But 3500 is just a bit too short for US-Europe (besides NYC-UK), and the 787 is intended for airlines serving both continents. Think the initial 772, with 5000nm range.
But you are right. There are PLENTY of routes at 3500nm and under. But a bit more range makes it more versatile for airlines that aren't planning on 8000nm routes and would like one type. Under 1/2 the range for the 783 to 788 is just too big a leap in my mind. It leaves too big a hole, namely, the hole that the 763/772nonER are filling right now, but who's buying them? One is too limited in use, the other is too heavy.
Airbus is filling that hole with the 332/3. B is leaving it wide open, which might be one reason recent orders have been going to that model and not the 783...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2624 times:
The B787-8 is too heavy for 4500nm routes and that leaves a hole for the A330-200 to fill? Check the weights. You'll find that that the A330-200 is a lot heavier than the B787-8.
TinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 963 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2609 times:
I brought up this issue with the 787-3 a while back on this forum and many people said that the 787-8 was fuel efficient enough to profitably fly on routes much less than its design range. I have always thought that Boeing needed to bump up the range of the 787-3...3500nm is just a little too short IMHO..not enough options.
This is the very problem Boeing had putting the 767 up against the A330...not enough capacity and range and Airbus took them to the cleaners. Capacity on the 787-3 seems adequate but the range is lacking. They DEFINATELY don't want to be making that mistake again with this market and this aircraft.
"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
Beauing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2384 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2): I believe that before all is said and done, the 783 will have a longer range, because despite Boeing's claim that they know what customers want and 3500nm is it, it isn't selling too well and it is probably due to range. 4000-4500nm would be much more functiona
Wouldn't that make the 783 heavier and less desireable for shorter routes under 3500 nm? What's the trade off here?
A350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1098 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2360 times:
The 783 will be able to do LHR-JFK and back for sure, but I doubt that it will do it more efficiently than a 788. Keep in mind that the larger wingspan massively reduces induced drag. This can compensate a few extra tons of aircraft structure.
A350
Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2360 times:
Quoting TinPusher007 (Reply 6): This is the very problem Boeing had putting the 767 up against the A330...not enough capacity and range and Airbus took them to the cleaners. Capacity on the 787-3 seems adequate but the range is lacking. They DEFINATELY don't want to be making that mistake again with this market and this aircraft.
If an airline needs more range than the B787-3 offers, then the B787-8 would be perfect for them.
Quoting Beauing (Reply 7): Wouldn't that make the 783 heavier and less desireable for shorter routes under 3500 nm? What's the trade off here?
Yes, exactly. Giving the B787-3 more range would make it heavier and also make it difficult to fit into B767-300 gates.
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2574 posts, RR: 59 Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2259 times:
The 787-3 is a direct response to the need of the Asian market that has for years "abused" long-haul wide bodies on intra-Asian routes. These carriers need the seat capacities, but not the range of the wide bodies on offer.
Previously there was the non-ER B767 or A300 available, and although still in production these models are hardly current technology. The 787-3 addresses that gap in the market, providing the same size aircraft as the long-haul 787-8/9 but with superior economics over shorter routes - mainly through being lighter.
The way aircraft are produced is changing - for both the A330 and B777 the first versions built were medium range aircraft which had excellent economics on medium and shorter long-haul routes, but were not capable on most routes over 10hrs. The aircraft to address the real long-haul market followed later from both manufacturers, albeit fairly quickly in Boeing's case, in the form of the B777-200ER/A330-200/A330-300X.
The A350 and B787 are turning this on its head - the long-haulers will be the first - crossing into what was just a few years back considered ultra long-haul. Boeing will follow this up with the 787-3, Airbus on the other hand will struggle - they've applied advanced composites, improved aerodynamics and new engines to the A330 to make it a viable competitor to the 787-8/9 but making the A350 into a good medium hauler seems like a bridge too far. They have nowhere left to go to make further weight savings without an all-new wing, the path leads them back 6 years to the abandoned A330-500, which took the A330-200 fuselage and mated it with a next-generation A300-style wing optimised for short to medium-haul operations.
Time will tell whether Airbus decide to go down that path, but any decision is a complex one - they have future A380 derivatives and an A320 replacement to consider over the next couple of years...
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2054 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): Airbus is filling that hole with the 332/3. B is leaving it wide open, which might be one reason recent orders have been going to that model and not the 783...
The 788/9 will offer similar or better economics than the A332 on medium haul routes while offering the capability to go ultra long haul with the same aircraft. The 783 is not meant to compete with the A332, that role falls to the 788/9.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Beauing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1925 times:
Thank you for the very well written and informative post. This is the type of analysis I was looking for when I started the thread. Just a couple more questions:
Quoting Crosswind (Reply 10): The 787-3 is a direct response to the need of the Asian market that has for years "abused" long-haul wide bodies on intra-Asian routes. These carriers need the seat capacities, but not the range of the wide bodies on offer
If this is true why haven't they sold more? Someone in a earlier post said the 783 was selling poorly.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1098 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2574 posts, 
From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 820 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
