Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why So Few Orders For 787-3?  
User currently offlinePaddy From Taiwan, joined Jul 2003, 390 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2766 times:

I suspected right from the start that the 787 program would get quite a few orders but I am surprised at how few of the 3 series have been ordered at this point. All I can remember off the top of my head is NH, although it seems like another might have ordered some too (JL maybe?). It seemed like the 3 would fill a very lucrative market niche but it is the 8 series that has taken the bulk of the orders so far. Why is this? Is it mainly because of the current fleet needs of the airlines who could afford to order it at this time? I would have expected more asian carriers and charter airlines to have ordered it. When do you all think we might see more 787-3 orders? Perhaps when the US carriers are in better shape? Let's discuss...

7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11983 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

While IMO it won't be a for a while, when (in my mind, not if) AA orders the 787, the bulk of the order will be for the 787-3. It is a prime replacement for the non-standard, unreliable A300s AA currently uses on Caribbean runs. As I said, though, IMO this order probably won't be placed for another 2-4 years and airplanes won't start arriving for probably another 8-10. However, one never knows ....

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Wait for the CX and SQ orders. They are likely to include some B787-3s.

User currently offlineCinek777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2721 times:

It will pick up it's going to be the best seller.look out Airbus!


If it's not Boeing dont fly.
User currently offlineDalecary From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

QF will look seriously at the 783 as a 763 domestic replacement aircraft.

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2669 times:

Because US carriers are broke.

If they had them though, they wouldn't be broke.

Another problem. The 300 pax config only has 1500-1700 miles range depending on cargo loads. It's really designed for about 220-240 pax where it will net the coast-to-coast range needed for domestic flights. That said, if airlines had these instead of 757's and 767' in their fleets, they'd be making money, at least on those flights - and that's with coach ticket prices about 10% lower than what they are today for domestic long haul.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

I don't think there are a lot of US domestic routes that would support such a large aircraft. Within UA's route network, for example, I can think of Hawaii to SFO/LAX and perhaps some inter-hub flying in a 2 cabin configuration and JFK-SFO/LAX in a 3 cabin configuration. What else?

User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2980 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Outside of NH, JL, & DL, there are not that many standard 767-300 operators. Other operators are mostly limited to a few examples such as Air Algerie & Air China.
Even the 763s QF & BA uses for short-haul flying are 763ERs.

With that the 783 will not be much more different. Even when the US airlines get healthy, the only carriers that may opt for the 783 are AA or DL with the latter most likely.

European charter carriers will not opt for 783 because of the influx of LCCs on short-haul flights, therefore, I imagine they will mis-use a 788 or 789 if capacity warrants it.
BA or LH could be possible candidates for the 783.

Chinese airlines and Indian airlines are also possible candidates.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why So Few A340-200 Orders? posted Sun Feb 6 2005 23:26:25 by San747
Why So Few Airlines On ZRH-UK? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 18:29:53 by 717fan
Why So Few Codeshare Flts @ YYZ posted Fri Nov 3 2006 05:54:18 by RicardoFG
ATA- Why So Few Cities Served From MDW? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 23:51:51 by Eastern1985
Hawaiian Airlines - Why So Few Intl Routes? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 05:03:31 by EmSeeEye
Gibraltar - Why So Few Flights posted Sat Jul 29 2006 03:17:28 by StarGoldLHR
PBI - Nice Airport, Why So Few Flights? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 14:52:06 by ContinentalGuy
Why So Few Business Seats On AF 744? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 21:11:31 by Avi8tir
Why So Few Russian Airlines In Zurich? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 16:50:31 by 717fan
African Low-Cost Carriers, Why So Few? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 17:57:43 by Pensacolaguy