Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Economics Of The 767-300ER Compared To The 787-8?  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9349 times:

Now that the 787 is only 2 years away from entering into service, I was wondering about the economics of the 767-300ER compared to the 787-8. Does anybody have any detailed comparison between these two models?

I would assume that any airliners ordering the 767-300ER would get a huge discount and with the 787 being sold out until 2011, could some airlines benefit from buying a 767-300ER while waiting to see if the 787-8 does when in service?

I know the 767 has lower operating cost than the A330, but how would this be compared against the 787? For an airline with little or no cargo maybe it would make sense to buy brand new 767 airplanes for now?


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9334 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):

I know the 767 has lower operating cost than the A330, but how would this be compared against the 787? For an airline with little or no cargo maybe it would make sense to buy brand new 767 airplanes for now?

If the 767 has lower costs than the A330, then why has the A330 done so well in the marketplace?


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9306 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 1):
If the 767 has lower costs than the A330, then why has the A330 done so well in the marketplace?

Because it can carry allot more cargo.

Quote:
In comparison with the Airbus A330-200, the 767-400ER offers superior economic performance -- with at least 4 percent lower operating costs. The 767-400ER weighs 40,000 pounds less than the A330-200.

I know this is a quote from Boeing and I do not have any statement to back this up, but it makes sense. If I have understood correctly the A330-200 it has the range and Cargo capability that the 767 lacks.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineKrisYYZ From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9299 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
I know the 767 has lower operating cost than the A330
of course, its a smaller, lighter plane with more range. The A330 can carry close to 400pax and its still one of the most efficient big twins out there.

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
I would assume that any airliners ordering the 767-300ER would get a huge discount and with the 787 being sold out until 2011, could some airlines benefit from buying a 767-300ER while waiting to see if the 787-8 does when in service?
except for military or cargo-converstions I doubt we will see many if any new B767 orders. With the B787 and A350(370), the B767 will be obsolete, even though it is one of the best airliners that graced the sky.

The B767(-200) came out in the early 80's, it is at least 10 years behind the A330/B764ER. Still it has the reputation of being the cheapest plane to fly long-haul and high capacity domestic ops.

KrisYYZ

[Edited 2006-05-30 15:55:05]

User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9218 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 2):
Quoting Joni (Reply 1):
If the 767 has lower costs than the A330, then why has the A330 done so well in the marketplace?

Because it can carry allot more cargo.

Doesn't that count as being economical?


User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9207 times:

Quoting Joni (Reply 1):
If the 767 has lower costs than the A330, then why has the A330 done so well in the marketplace?

The 767 has a lower trip cost than the A330, but the A330 has a better revenue potential. In other words, a 767 is great if you're not hauling a lot of cargo or doesn't need the range of the A332.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9176 times:

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
I know the 767 has lower operating cost than the A330, but how would this be compared against the 787? For an airline with little or no cargo maybe it would make sense to buy brand new 767 airplanes for now

Just a back of the envelope analysis here, but compared to 767-300ER on a 4,500nm mission, a 787-8 with 224 three class pax load, vs 218 for the 763ER, would consume about 20,000lbs less fuel and arrive at the destination 35-40 mins sooner. That's a total trip burn savings of 25% and a reduced burn per seat of 20-22%. Very significant considering that after passenger baggage. the 787 would have two more additional pallet positions available for cargo. Depending on the gross payload including cargo the total fuel burn may come out slightly more or less than a pax only payload for 767-300ER. The fuel savings are just that great...



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9096 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 6):
Just a back of the envelope analysis here, but compared to 767-300ER on a 4,500nm mission, a 787-8 with 224 three class pax load, vs 218 for the 763ER, would consume about 20,000lbs less fuel and arrive at the destination 35-40 mins sooner. That's a total trip burn savings of 25% and a reduced burn per seat of 20-22%. Very significant considering that after passenger baggage. the 787 would have two more additional pallet positions available for cargo. Depending on the gross payload including cargo the total fuel burn may come out slightly more or less than a pax only payload for 767-300ER. The fuel savings are just that great...



-widebodyphotog

WOWx2! 1st WOW! I did not realize that there was this great difference between the old and the new

2nd WOW! Widebodyphotog, I am so impressed by your knowledge in airplanes. Thank you very much for an informative feedback  Smile

Your posts are always appreciated



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
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...
CO And The 767-300ER posted Fri Nov 3 2006 03:07:08 by TrijetFan1
The Price Of Cab/Parking/Lodge Compared To Airfare posted Thu Mar 24 2005 04:21:14 by Aviationhack
Delta 767-300ER Manchester To Atlanta posted Mon Dec 13 2004 12:33:46 by Britannia191a
New Hawaiian 767-300ER Inbound To HNL posted Fri Oct 25 2002 22:53:17 by Clickhappy
RAM Takes Delivery Of First 767-300ER posted Thu Jan 31 2002 04:05:20 by Lindy field
Seats On AA's 767-300ER's To Hawaii posted Fri Oct 27 2000 14:26:08 by Bishop1
Economics Of The 787-8 Vs 767-300ER posted Wed Jun 14 2006 02:49:25 by Baron95
Economics Of The 767 posted Wed Dec 28 2005 18:58:20 by Cedarjet
About The Range Of B747-400 And 767-300ER posted Sun Dec 24 2000 14:01:16 by VH-ANA
Bmi & The 767-300ER posted Sun Jan 8 2006 18:48:47 by Monkeyboi