Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 787 Questions .....  
User currently offlineDutchdragon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 22 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3199 times:

I have a question or 2 regarding the Boeing 787's, specifically, the 787-3.

The question is this .... why in the world would an airline pay ten's of millions
of dollars for a highly advanced widebody, over several years in development
and millions, maybe billions in cost, and to give it a "measly" range equal or
less than that of their 757-200's and -300's ?????

This to me has as of yetmade no sense to me whatsoever, much as I have tried
and have been a Boeing supporter all of my life, since I've lived in Seattle all of my
life as well, and try as much to fly their aircraft (that is, as a passenger), as much as possible.

The only thing that I can "best guess" as to why it ended up like this, is not
to make it compete with the range of their 767-300ERs and -400ER's.

If anyone has any other idea's, guesses or actuall facts about this, I'd love to hear them.

Thank You.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3163 times:

The 787-3 is specifically tailored for short-range, high-density city pairs where it doesn't make sense (for whatever reason) to have a crap-load of narrow-body frequencies.

Quoting Dutchdragon (Thread starter):

The only thing that I can "best guess" as to why it ended up like this, is not
to make it compete with the range of their 767-300ERs and -400ER's.

Err, no. The 787-3 is a replacement for short/medium-range widebodies like the A300 and 767-300 that are used on short but heavy routes.

Look at how AA operates the A300 around Latin America: the typical segment is well under 3,000 nm but the passenger cabin and cargo hold are usually very full. It makes little sense to fly an aircraft like the 787-8 (which has 8,500 nm range) on a trip that is only 2,000 nm. The 787-8 would be carrying tons and tons of dead weight.

The 787-3 is a lighter, stripped-down 787-8 that can fit into smaller gates and fly from shorter runways, improving economics on short-haul flights. However, some airlines will likely "abuse" the 787-8 on short routes rather than opperate a mixed fleet of 787-3/8.


User currently offlineAf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3141 times:

Small routes with many passengers is one reason, like MSP-SEA. Many people have said this route gets full. It was operated with NW DC-10's, 752's, and 753's, but now that the DC-10s are retired the route is only operated with the 753 and 752. The A330 is on different routes because NW still does not have as many DC-10s for international and domestic flights. NW will probably order more A333s for domestic routes with high demand.


It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3067 times:

There are so many reasons why an airline would buy the 787-3

Prestige
Maintain competitiveness with other airlines through fuel efficiency, lower maintanance, having the most technological advanced a/c.
Replace older a/c that are retiring anyway. Remember the older 757/767/A300's are close to 30 years old.

ect, ect.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30619 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2975 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Essentially, the 787-3 is designed as a quick and relatively inexpensive (both in terms of development) way to make it more efficient for JL and NH to move people around Japan. It is not as optimized as it could be, which is why it's range is not very good. It may see a role in domestic US, EU, and Asia (India/China) service or it may just end up being used solely by NH and JL.

User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2930 times:

Quoting Af773atmsp (Reply 2):
NW will probably order more A333s for domestic routes with high demand.

I don't think this will happen. NW seems to be moving toward using narrow bodies and increasing frequency. NW used to rotate the DC-10s on SEA-MSP as they also use the DC-10 on SEA-HNL and MSP-AMS. They could effectively rotate a plane DTW-AMS-MSP-SEA-HNL-KIX-HNL-MSP. MSP has A330-300s while SEA has A330-200s. Does NW even operate A330-300s out of SEA? If NW chose to operate an A330-200 out of MSP to someplace in Europe, then a rotation of MSP-???-SEA-NRT-SEA-MSP could be feasible. The only A330-300 being used on domestic ops is MSP-HNL. It has a possible rotation of MSP-HNL-MSP-AMS-DTW-AMS-MSP-HNL.

NW could abuse an 787-8. As it was said in another thread, NW has noted that it will have a rotation of DTW-JFK-NRT when JFK-NRT is restarted. Why? They can reposition the 787-8 between two high-demand routes. A plane could effectively go DTW-JFK-NRT-DTW-???. If one could not get a seat on NRT-JFK, they could be rerouted via DTW and get a 787 all the way to JFK.

The 787-3 has only been ordered by JL and NH. These are two airlines that use widebodies out of the major airports in all Y configuration and with high cycles. Both airlines are trying to streamline their fleet (JL more than NH) and the 787-3 can be used in heavy domestic routes and some inter-Asia routes more effectively than a 787-8 or -9.

Any airline that currently operates older 767s or A300s is a potential 787-3 operator. However I believe more airlines will abuse their fleet for repositioning than buy route specific planes. Look at how AA currently rotates their 777-200ERs between NYC, ORD and DFW.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 5):
Any airline that currently operates older 767s or A300s is a potential 787-3 operator. However I believe more airlines will abuse their fleet for repositioning than buy route specific planes. Look at how AA currently rotates their 777-200ERs between NYC, ORD and DFW.

Granted, but there are some applications where it isn't suitable to either abuse an aircraft or continue to rely on repositions. I think AA's Caribbean and Latin America operations will be one such market. I myself tend to forget that AA is the largest passenger A300 customer left with a rather large fleet of 34 aircraft!

I don't expect the 787-3 to be a runaway best seller, but nor do I expect the sole operators to be ANA and JAL. It's time will come....


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

All the arguments in the world about it's "short range missions" can't convince me that under 3500nm range was the right choice. 4000nm-4500nm was far more useful, and Boeing might get other customers. But at the range of a 739 (non-ER), the 787-3 spec really cripples it in the market.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
All the arguments in the world about it's "short range missions" can't convince me that under 3500nm range was the right choice. 4000nm-4500nm was far more useful, and Boeing might get other customers. But at the range of a 739 (non-ER), the 787-3 spec really cripples it in the market.

I'm thinking that depending on regulations there might be a 787-3.5 as it were with either taking a plain 787-8 and putting on the shorter wingtips for gate compatibility, or increasing the MTOW of the normal 787-3 by enough to get the extra 500-1000nm range. Its honestly not going to matter that you maximize the efficiency of the aircraft for this class, given that its going to be a whole world different than what they currently use, and the small fact that you won't see any competition for this class of aircraft for a couple decades or so.

That said the A300 has a standard range of 1800nm for its first version, moved up to 3000nm with the higher MTOW B4 version.

So the 787-3 already as range capable as the best of the A300, and I bet picks up range as you swap passengers/cargo for fuel at a much faster rate thanks to better engines and better aerodynamics


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
All the arguments in the world about it's "short range missions" can't convince me that under 3500nm range was the right choice. 4000nm-4500nm was far more useful, and Boeing might get other customers.

Totally agree. Though 3500nm can reach much of western Europe, some northwest Africa and northern South America. 1000 more nm would put more of Europe, Africa and South America in range for airlines like DL and AA.

For an airline like AA, they could rotate a 4500nm range 787-3 between JFK/BOS-Europe, Carribean and South American routes as well as between JFK, BOS, MIA and DFW for similar missions. The current 787-3 at 3500nm can't really be used that way.

However when you place the range around areas of Europe and Asia, the plane looks like it could be utilized very well.

Maybe Boeing will come out with a 787-3ER just for missions that airlines like AA and DL have a lot of.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineRootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
757/767

oh come on! only the oldest ones and they are 24 y/o by the way. many newer ones have been made less than 30 years ago

 airplane   wave 



A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30619 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
All the arguments in the world about it's "short range missions" can't convince me that under 3500nm range was the right choice. 4000nm-4500nm was far more useful, and Boeing might get other customers. But at the range of a 739 (non-ER), the 787-3 spec really cripples it in the market.

Yet the 787-3's market doesn't need that range.

For "only" 20,000lbs more OEW, you get the 787-8 and ~4500nm more range. Now 20,000lbs isn't "nothing" by a long-shot, but compared to the 100,000lb OEW between the 763ER and 772ER to get ~1500nm more range (and, admittedly, 79 more people), it's a heck of a deal. And it allows you to use one plane on any mission, so today it could fly HNL-EWR and tomorrow EWR-FRA-EWR and then two days later EWR-NRT.


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
Err, no. The 787-3 is a replacement for short/medium-range widebodies like the A300 and 767-300 that are used on short but heavy routes.

Exactly. It's not quite as wide as the 777, but is wider than the Airbus widebodies, and thus has a great cargo potential. Look at all of the older 767-300 (non -ER models) that DL and AA operate on domestic routes. The 787-3 would be a perfect people hauler for Delta's ATL-Florida runs.

Quoting Af773atmsp (Reply 2):
NW will probably order more A333s for domestic routes with high demand.

As much as I'd like to see it, I doubt that it will happen. I could see NW ordering a small fleet of 787-3's for this type of operation.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8):
That said the A300 has a standard range of 1800nm for its first version, moved up to 3000nm with the higher MTOW B4 version.

Airbus initially wanted the A300 to have the range of the A330, however the engines were not available at the time. The A300-600R pushed the range to about that of a 752, making W. Europe-US East Coast flights possible.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 9):
For an airline like AA, they could rotate a 4500nm range 787-3 between JFK/BOS-Europe, Carribean and South American routes as well as between JFK, BOS, MIA and DFW for similar missions. The current 787-3 at 3500nm can't really be used that way

AA pulled its A300's off of East Coast-Europe flights years ago. These flights are for the role of the 787-8. Sure it has a design range of 8000+ nm, but 90% of the flights it operates (like the 777) are going to be between 3500 and 7000nm. Look at the 777-200ER, it has a range of 7700nm, and operates anything between JFK-LHR pond hops to flights that push its limit, such as EWR/JFK-BOM on CO or DL.

I see AA as a potential 787-3 customer, simply to replace its fleet of A300's and 767-300 non -ER's on domestic high capacity flights, and most specifically, those packed (both in passenger and cargo terms) runs to the Caribbean and Latin America.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2282 times:

Quoting Cba (Reply 12):
Airbus initially wanted the A300 to have the range of the A330, however the engines were not available at the time.

The engines?


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2825 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

The 787-3 is really targeted only at the Japanese market. Like the folded wing on the 777, Boeing did it not because it made commercial sense in and of itself, but rather because it solidified orders from JAL and ANA. It's really as simple as that. There is also some appeal to US carriers from Transcons, but since the US carriers (and pretty much anyone who can) is replacing widebodies with frequency in domestic and international markets that don't have range requirements it's appeal has been very limited.

The weak sales are a reflection of frequency beating capacity on routes, even when there is a large CASM advantage to be had.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2060 times:

I agree, that the 787-3 makes little sense at least for the American Market. At 2,500 - 3,000 plane is just barely capable of non-stop transcontinental flights, and I assume only if the headwinds and other weather factors aren't an issue. I don't think you could fly it to HNL as the range buffer just isn't there. I think the key to widespread popularity among U.S. airlines, is its route flexibility -- the ability to switch the plane from JFK to MIA to JFK - LAX on short notice or move 787 ops from LAX to HNL for instance as market trends shift and planes age. The plane would be perfect for widespread domestic service with just a 500 mile increase in range. (just my layperson's lay opinion of course!) Could/would Boeing bump up the range by this small amount to make the 787-3 attractive to the US market?

So what 787 model will AA, DL and UA be purchasing? I assume they will purchase them for long haul international routes only then.

I guess we gotta wait for the 737RS to see what the U.S. airlines will be flying domestically, huh?


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...
Boeing 787 Update From Earnings Conference Call posted Wed Jan 31 2007 16:40:51 by NYC777
NZ Purchases Four More Boeing 787-9 A/C posted Tue Dec 19 2006 06:19:59 by TG992
New Boeing 787 Order Rumor posted Thu Dec 7 2006 03:13:06 by ERAUgrad02
Photo Of Boeing 787 Section Being Transported posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:09:01 by RobK
AA, DL, UA Vie For Boeing 787 Gold Care Contracts posted Wed Oct 18 2006 01:13:52 by WorldTraveler
Boeing 787 To Have Best Cabin Air/Comfort Ever posted Sun Oct 8 2006 20:32:05 by RoseFlyer
Boeing 787 Dreamliner Break Even No! posted Tue Oct 3 2006 22:26:50 by Bringiton
Boeing 787-3 For Delta Hawaii Routes? posted Sat Sep 9 2006 22:30:06 by 1337Delta764
Boeing 787 Progress posted Mon Sep 4 2006 18:03:31 by DTW757
Kawasaki Heavy Mulling 2nd Plant For Boeing 787 posted Fri Aug 18 2006 20:29:44 by NYC777