EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17131 times:
In simple terms, how does the 787-8 compare with the 767-300 and is it a viable replacement for the 763? I did a size study using data from the Boeing web page and to me it appears the 787-8 to be bigger by some margin than the 763. The 787-9 appears to be closer in size to the 777. Big as it is, how does the 787-8 serve as a viable replacement for the 757, even the 757-300?
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10512 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17130 times:
The B787 does not in any way replace the B757. It replaces the B767-300ER in that trip costs are about the same but with more capacity and greater range. In other words, one won't save any money replacing a B767-300ER with a B787-8 (and the acquisition isn't cheap) but one can bring in significantly more revenue.
The 787-8 is not a 757-300 replacement, the 787-3 is. Even though the 787-3 is the same size as the 787-8, and is larger than the 757-300, the 787-3 is designed for the same type of routes as the 757-300 - short to medium range high-capacity routes.
The 757-200 will be replaced by a variant of the 737RS.
[Edited 2006-11-04 23:25:06]
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6785 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17102 times:
Why does the 787-8 have to be the same size as the aircraft it "replaces"? NWA is not looking for the 787-8 to replace the 767-300 as it doesn't own any. They are not looking for it to replace either the 757-200 or the 757-300 as it is a totally different aircraft.
The 787 is new aircraft that will have a new mission, just like the 747 when it came out.
CJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16938 times:
The 787, all three of them, possibly four (787-10), are not replacements for the 757-200. The 787-800, has a relatively close capacity of 210 to 250, however, in three classes, and its range is vastly longer than that of the 757. The replacement and direct competitor to the A321, as a replacement to the 757, is the 737-900 ER, its capacity, size, and range is very similar, yet the aircraft is more economical, makes sense does it not?
When comparing the 787 to the 767, the 787-3, seeming to be an A330 competitor, is actually quite similar to the 767. The 767-400ER, is the 787 of comercial service today, without a doubt, the 787 will retire this (the aircraft are too similar). The main difference between the two aircraft is the range and capacity characteristics. Boeing has sat the 787 in this order, where capacity and range are directly proportional 767<787<777, this is to say the 767 has less range and capacity than the 787, and the 777 has a higher capacity, and the range is most similar to that of the 787, though the 777's capacity compensates for the shorter ranges, with the exception of the 777-200LR, of which has a capacity of 301, and a range of 9420.
The 777-200LR is extremely superior compared to other aircraft. I expect this to sell very well in the future with North American airlines and Chinese airlines, as China's expanding economy should increase business between the two powers immmensely. The LR should pair up the cities of North America and Asia, more effectively than any other aircraft, including the A340-500/600, (my philosophy is that two engines are easier to maintain, and more efficient(less drag) than four engines, something the airlines will take into account, the smart airlines). Its high sales should be based on the original 777's performances and safety record, remember that air france incident in canada with the A340, well at least everyone survived.
Back to the issue at hand.
The guy who came up with the 787 for boeing was a genius, because this is how the story will go:
Airlines buy A380, yeah, good at first. then! Over the years, because, its huge and can only go to big airports, airport landing fees, and taxes, will rise. Airlines won't like this, such that 70% of passengers on an A380 are'nt making frankfurt, paris, or Beijing their final destination, they're actually going to board a 737 to munich or bordeaux after their long flight. So fly that 70% with a smaller more convenient aircraft, the 787, landing, airport fees will be cheaper, and will be more effective over time, because you can now land at bordeaux, and munich, with increasing passenger demand over time.
So what I'm saying is, the 787, will link point to point, rather than large unsustainable, unbearably inconvenient for passenger connecting major world hubs.
Yet, time will tell, and airlines will choose aircraft for different reasons, e.g. why qatar has ordered 60 hypethetical aircraft from airbus drawn on some paper, when boeing has something a lot closer to reality. I think they call that airbus aircraft the Airbus A3787, not that airbus have gone and directly copied the 787, just like they didn't copy the 737's winglets for their A320's. So there we go.