Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13540 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.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8790 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13498 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!
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8498 posts, RR: 42 Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day ago) and read 13391 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
SirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 13265 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.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8558 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 13241 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.
Brendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 13145 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.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8498 posts, RR: 42 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 13134 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
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 13123 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
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)...
Johnny From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 13048 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.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1864 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 12994 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.
Rottamo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 12975 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.
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.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25869 posts, RR: 79 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 12965 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
Rottamo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 12953 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8498 posts, 
From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, 
:
From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 887 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 0 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 138 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
