Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Economics Of The 787-8 Vs 767-300ER  
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19951 times:

A lot has been said about the efficiency advantages of the 787 vs current generation mid-size widebodies. But I can never find any hard numbers.

Can someone help with that? In order to make it meaningful and avoid an A vs B debate, lets look at one very specific scenario.

Lets say I am JetBlue and I decide to start my first long range international route JFK to GIG with 2 daily flights each way and I need to buy 4 mid-size widebodies and I only want to buy from Boeing.

The question is if I buy the 787-8 (assuming it would be available now) vs a used 767-300ER, how long would it take for me to realize any savings.

If I take into account acquisition/financing/insurance costs, maintenance costs and fuel costs, etc, when does it pay off? 3 years, 5 years?

I'd really appreciate some quantitative numbers, rather than qualitative advantages.

Thanks in advance.


Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 19909 times:

Well your attention goes beyond my knowledge, but the 787 is supposed to be about 20% more efficient. That is a common number as far as efficiency improvement goes with a new generation of planes and generally used as a target.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 19802 times:

The unit acquisition cost are supposed to be lower; the aircraft is 20% more fuel efficient; I believe maintnance costs will be lower- albeit probably more labor intensive (just guessing here from mine limited experience with composites) and, if you are the first to use the 787 on the JFK-GIG route, you will be able to cash-in a whole lot more than your competitors (burning less fuel then them) and steal a bunch of pax because you can either offer a better product for the same price, or charge less for the fares.

So I'd say you'll be seeing not only savings, but immediatly you will also be seeing extra cash pouring in. I don't know how long it will take to pay off - not sure how long it takes to pay off any aircraft - but it should be pretty quick compared to other models.

Note: I did not take into account the A370 or any other aircraft above, just the two you mentioned.

My two cents anyways..

[Edited 2006-06-14 04:20:33]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 19719 times:

Can we estimate how much fuel a ful pax loaded 787 will burn on JFK-GIG? How about the 767-300ER? That would tell me the fuel savings/day.


Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 19676 times:

What about cargo revenue? Could the 788 carry full pax and some cargo (more than the 767)? The distance (via great circle mapper) is 4786 miles, so it seems fesiable that it could go close, if not all the way, to MTOW with the fuel and pax, plus whatever is left for cargo.

User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8683 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 19652 times:

I would estimate the savings would be about 25% more. The engines will burn less and fuel savings will be better than the 767. I guess the real savings will prove its self on long routes such as JFK-SYD which is 9950miles according to GCM.

MCOflyer



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineBrendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19556 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter):
A lot has been said about the efficiency advantages of the 787 vs current generation mid-size widebodies. But I can never find any hard numbers.

Can someone help with that? In order to make it meaningful and avoid an A vs B debate, lets look at one very specific scenario.

Look at the answer Widebodyphotog gave in this thread  Smile:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2797559/6/#ID2797559


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19545 times:

This is what I have:

For an average stage length of 2.501nm (don't have the units, I presume nm), the average U.S. airlines B763 fuel consumption is 1,568 gallons per hour. Multiply that by the current AvGas prices (no idea how much it is), then calculate 20% lower consumption and you'll get the fuel savings.

The data above are for JUL 04 - JUL 05, but should have remained very similar if not the same.

Cheers

Edit: btw, was the the 20% B claims lower fuel savings or overal operational costs? Can't remember..

[Edited 2006-06-14 08:14:57]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19534 times:

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 5):
I would estimate the savings would be about 25% more. The engines will burn less and fuel savings will be better than the 767. I guess the real savings will prove its self on long routes such as JFK-SYD which is 9950miles according to GCM.

First off, no airline flies that route and the only airplane that will be able to fly that route in the foreseeable future is the 772LR. Second, whether a route is 500nm or 5000nm, the savings will be huge. Fuel savings as low as 2-3% make a huge difference for an airline's bottom line, let alone 20%

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 4):
Could the 788 carry full pax and some cargo (more than the 767)? The distance (via great circle mapper) is 4786 miles, so it seems fesiable that it could go close, if not all the way, to MTOW with the fuel and pax, plus whatever is left for cargo.

The 788 has a projected range of over 8600nm, JFK-GIG will be no issue

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 2):
albeit probably more labor intensive (just guessing here from mine limited experience with composites)

Limited experience is the key there. As composites become more and more common, they will become easier and easier to work on.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAntskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 936 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 19487 times:

Quoting Brendows (Reply 6):
Look at the answer Widebodyphotog gave in this thread Smile:
Economics Of The 767-300ER Compared To The 787-8? (by OyKIE May 30 2006 in Civil Aviation)#ID2797559

fantastic reference, thank you! shows why QF/JQ are buying the B787 big-time - and procrastinators like EK need to be concerned (though they have mostly B777's, not B767's)...


User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 19459 times:

Hi, that is a very,very interesting thread.Thanks!!!

I was thinking the same so often.

As far as i know the fuel-saving of 20 percent, which is used for the B787 so often is not a fuel-saving/airplane, it is based on fuel-saving/seat.

But the B787-8 has a little bit more capacity than the B763.So we probably can assume around 15-18 percent better fuel-consumption/airplane on each flight.

Johnny  Smile


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2099 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19405 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 10):
As far as i know the fuel-saving of 20 percent, which is used for the B787 so often is not a fuel-saving/airplane, it is based on fuel-saving/seat.

The 20% is also based on using a rather tight 9 abreast seating (17" wide), versus 7 abreast on a 767 with 18" wide seats. It is still uclear at this point how efficient the bleedless engines will be. I suspect that the airlines will figure out how to reduce fuel burn by cutting back on cabin air and electrical power to reduce the load on the APU.

Cargo should be much better on the 787 since the 767 was crippled by not being able to carry the standard LD3 cans side by side. The extra weight could give a little back in fuel efficientcy.

It is also hard to know what the airlines are really paying for the 787 although the high number of orders suggest that they do not need to give deep discounts. 767-300ERs seem to be in short supply right now and the prices are somewhat high. There are plenty of 767-200s parked in the desert.

Still, even if the real advantage is only half, 10% that is still big. Jet-A is retailing for $4.60-$5.11 per gallon, up to $6.80 at LGA. The spot market price is around $1.70 and the airlines pay somewhere in between depending on the delivery costs and the deal they cut with the supplier, probably around $2.50-$3.50 per gallon. So if the airline is is burning 1,568 gallons per hour at $3 per gallon that is $4,704 per hour. If the 787 burns 20% less fuel that would be $3799 per hour, more than $900 per hour difference.


User currently offlineRottamo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19386 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 7):
or an average stage length of 2.501nm (don't have the units, I presume nm), the average U.S. airlines B763 fuel consumption is 1,568 gallons per hour. Multiply that by the current AvGas prices (no idea how much it is), then calculate 20% lower consumption and you'll get the fuel savings.

From same dataset (DOT) we get that 767-300 (I guess that DOT doesn't make difference between regular vs. ER) has 216 seats on average. It flies 12.2 Block hours per day and it has 2.2 departures per day.

some routes
JFK-LON = 3009 nm
LAX-LON = 4748 nm
MSP-AMS = 3620 nm

Widepodywing gave us that 20,000lbs difference for longer missions.
Let's simplify and assume that fuel burn difference is 20,000 lbs for average mission =9,072 kg. Density of kerosine is 0.8 kg/l and gallon is 3.785 412 L -> fuel consumption difference is in gallons 9,072 /(0.8 *3.785 412)= 2,996.

And if we assume that price of gallon is around $2 then trip cost savings are about $6,000. $12,000 for return trip and 365 return trips pre year $2,190,000
( it is highly unlikely that one plane could do that much flying per year.)
And per one-way seat (if we assume 220 seats) $27.

List price of 767-300ER is $133.0 millions and 787-8 $148.0 millions.

For me 25% and 20,000lbs means that trip fuel consumption is
60,000 lbs ( 9,000 gallons) for 787 and 80,000 (12,000 gallons) for 767. This sounds low compared to
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/458558.html
A330 which uses 6100 less fuel than DC10 when flying MSP-AMS.
This means that
DC10 uses 6,100/0.3 = 20,333 gallons per trip and
A330 uses 20,333-6,100 = 14,233 gallons per trip
but these are real world numbers and include cargo and baggage and probably
Widepodywing used emptier plane.
According to dot A330 uses 1,871 gallons per hour vs. 767-300 uses 1,519. Difference is 1-1,519/1,871 = -19% (which sounds much) but is same magnitude as 12,000/14,233-1 =-16%.

So we can conclude that numbers seems to be about correct magnitude and more knowledge people can correct my back in the envelope calculations. It seems that fuel saving from 787 would be even larger when compared to A330.

Rottamo


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19376 times:

Quoting Johnny (Reply 10):
As far as i know the fuel-saving of 20 percent, which is used for the B787 so often is not a fuel-saving/airplane, it is based on fuel-saving/seat.

But the B787-8 has a little bit more capacity than the B763.So we probably can assume around 15-18 percent better fuel-consumption/airplane on each flight.



Quoting AADC10 (Reply 11):
The 20% is also based on using a rather tight 9 abreast seating (17" wide), versus 7 abreast on a 767 with 18" wide seats. It is still uclear at this point how efficient the bleedless engines will be. I suspect that the airlines will figure out how to reduce fuel burn by cutting back on cabin air and electrical power to reduce the load on the APU.

Actually, you are both incorrect. The 20% savings is based on the 8 abreast version of the 788 which is targeted at matching the capacity of the 763ER. The fact that the aircraft can take 9 abreast is a bonus for carriers, though they will have to adjust for the weight addition.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJohnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19366 times:

@ N1120A

Ok, thanks a lot for your info.I always expected the B787-8 capacity to be slightly bigger as the B763ER because of its greater cabin space.

Johnny  Smile


User currently offlineRottamo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 19364 times:

Ok. I checked number again and if 20,000lbs = 3000 gallons is 20% consumption saving then trip consumptions are
767 15,000 gallons and
787 12,000 gallons

About jet-A price. Airtran paid 193.63 US cents for gallon during last quarter (source: quarterly report). If price is $3 then savings are 50% bigger.

Rottamo


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...
Economics Of The 767-300ER Compared To The 787-8? posted Tue May 30 2006 15:35:07 by OyKIE
Chances Of Airlines Ordering The 787 Vs. The A350 posted Fri Apr 21 2006 19:30:02 by 1337Delta764
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
Range Of L1011 Vs 767-300ER posted Mon Jul 19 1999 16:05:38 by Fly US Airways
Virtual Construction Of The 787 posted Tue Nov 7 2006 20:15:06 by NYC777
787 Vs 767 And 757 posted Sat Nov 4 2006 23:20:19 by EBJ1248650
Video Of The New AA 767 Business Class posted Mon Oct 2 2006 05:56:28 by DFW13L
Potential Routes Of The 8 Delta Int'l 767-400ERs posted Wed Jun 28 2006 00:40:59 by 1337Delta764
Are These Updated Pics Of The 787 Interior? posted Thu Feb 16 2006 09:32:01 by BigMac