Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Who Else Will Order The 787-3  
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4739 times:

so far there have been extremely few 783 orders, i believe the number will increase when airlines like DL, UA, CO, and AA renew their fleets. Especially DL who uses 767's on their SAN-ATL route, eventually those 767's will have to be replaced and the 783 seems like the perfect plane to replace the 767. it might be a little larger but they could reduce the daily flights by 1 or 2 757's to fill the 783 or they could just give the passengers a ton of extra room which would definately be nice but i doubt that would happen. The 767-300ER's will probably be replaced first with larger 787's and the ER's could move to domestic routes until DL is finally ready to replace the 767's all together, or it might be easier to replace the whole 767 fleet completely over years. but who else will order the plane.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4652 times:

or any other international carriers

User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4619 times:

No one in Europe for sure, certification program for the -3 has been cancelled there.


Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4594 times:

You've answered your own question. AA, CO, DL & UA will all need the 783 for transcon routes, the Caribbean & Hawaiian runs. AA itself will need at least 30-35 783s w/RR engines to replace the Airbus fleet in the foreseeable future.
Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2410 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4577 times:

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 3):
AA itself will need at least 30-35 783s w/RR engines to replace the Airbus fleet

Just out of curiosity, why are you so sure about the RR engines?

Also, does the 787-3 have greater cargo capacity than the A300?


User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

Kaitak744 (reply 4), perhaps because AA uses the RR on their 777s and has a pretty good relationship with RR as well.
The 783 can probably carry as much freight, volume-wise as the A300. Not so sure weight-wise, tho.
All speculations on my part here, altho we'll know for sure in a few years.
Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4534 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 2):
No one in Europe for sure, certification program for the -3 has been cancelled there.

If a EU carrier wants the plane, Boeing will certify it. Heck, if EASA lowers the fees, Boeing will certify it even if their is no interest from EU carriers at this time.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 4):
Also, does the 787-3 have greater cargo capacity than the A300?

About 21,000lbs and 1264 cubic feet more.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 2):
No one in Europe for sure, certification program for the -3 has been cancelled there.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
If a EU carrier wants the plane, Boeing will certify it. Heck, if EASA lowers the fees, Boeing will certify it even if their is no interest from EU carriers at this time.

It really depends on how European carriers decide on procuring other versions of 787. If LH orders 787-8/-9 in the first place its likely that they order 783s to replace the A300s. Otherwise not. BA has some 767s to replace as they definitely need wide bodies for some intra-European routes. But there are constellations conceivable in which they could "mis-use" normal widebodies or reduce the amount of traffic from second line airports into slot-restricted hubs in order to offer more frequencies with then smaller aircrafts between the hubs. Major bottlenecks where that would occur are LHR and FRA. At least LH is not in a hurry to replace the A300s, but BA might eager to get rid of the 767s soon? In any case the current market for 787-3 in Europe is not bigger than about 40 frames.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4458 times:

We have not discussed this topic in, say, two or three days?

Who will place additional orders for the 783? Probably follow up orders from ANA and JAL, maybe one or more of the Chinese airlines for domestic services in a couple of years time, and thats about it. And thats fine with Boeing, the 783 is a niche airplane that was designed with the Japanese market in mind......by offering the 783, Boeing confirmed large orders for the 783 and other variants of the 787 with ANA (the launch customer for the 787) and JAL. And, Boeing likely has covered the development costs of the 783 with the initial ANA and JAL orders.

Many think that AA will order the 783 as an A300/762 replacement and/or DL will order the 783 to replace domestic 763A aircraft. On one hand, the 783 makes sense for some of the shorter routes operated by these types (why fly a 7000 mile airplane on a 1200 mile route?) but, on the other hand, by opting for the 783, DL and AA will give up some flexibility with their fleets. Time will tell.....a lot depends upon the price of fuel and what kind of deals Boeing is will to make with DL and AA, two of Boeings ""special customers"". If there is not a huge price advantage in taking 783s over 788s, I think both DL and AA will pass on the 783 and settle on the 788 variant; felxibility is a good thing. We shall see...


User currently offlineUPPERDECKFAN From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4412 times:

I think 783 might be a good fit for middle east carriers on medium haul routes like India, Pakistan, East Africa,etc.

Also as an option to replace 757, although adding some capacity and range.



744,742,741,772,773,762,732,735,738,752,727,717,DC10,DC9,M82,M87,319,320,321,343,346,L1011,CRJ2,CRJ9,E190,ATR42,DSH8,
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4402 times:

I always thought the problem with the 783s for AA was that fuel + cargo + pax limited its range to something less than what is needed for JFK-Caribbean. They'd be better off abusing 788s.

User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2410 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4325 times:

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 10):
I always thought the problem with the 783s for AA was that fuel + cargo + pax limited its range to something less than what is needed for JFK-Caribbean. They'd be better off abusing 788s.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 4):
Also, does the 787-3 have greater cargo capacity than the A300?

About 21,000lbs and 1264 cubic feet more.

One of the key reasons why AA operates A300s to S.America is due to its high cargo volume. If the 787-3 has higher cargo volume, AA would definitely want it. They can fill the plane with only ~250 seats and get roughly 4,000nm out of it? That should be enough for most routes. Also, the 787-3's short wingspan will come in handy at MIA and JFK. That new multi billion dollar terminal AA just built at JFK only has about 6 787-8 capable gates (and the air bridges are all fixed, so it will cost them millions to adjust them now).


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4310 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 11):
They can fill the plane with only ~250 seats and get roughly 4,000nm out of it? That should be enough for most routes.

The 783 does not have 4000nm of range.....its more like 2500nm with a full load. Thats one of the big issues: does the 783 afford AA with enough flexibility to make acquiring the type interesting?


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4242 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
If a EU carrier wants the plane, Boeing will certify it.

Of course they would. But as of now, the interest is the 787-3 in Europe is stagnant.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4223 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 12):
The 783 does not have 4000nm of range.....its more like 2500nm with a full load.

And even less if loaded to MZFW - something like 1250nm...

Your comments about the 787-3 lacking flexibility is an important one. The ability to shift those 763ERs and 764ERs to long-haul international missions has helped CO and DL financially. A 787-3 fleet would be solely dedicated to domestic hub-to-hub, transcon, and (maybe) Hawai'i operations. If those markets crater, then those 787-3s would have to be parked. And if medium-to-long-haul markets gain strength, you have to buy new 787-8s.

I just think the plane is inherently too inflexible for anything more then high-density short-haul traffic, and that market is limited to Asia (and perhaps the Middle East/Indian subcontinent).


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4139 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 8):
on the other hand, by opting for the 783, DL and AA will give up some flexibility with their fleets.

So where will they park these ADG-V 787-8/9 aircraft when the existing domestic 767 gates can already support the ADG-IV 787-3? They start flying 787-8/9's all over the US then large hub airports had better start building some bigger gates.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
If those markets crater, then those 787-3s would have to be parked.

Your talking about constrained airports like LAX, JFK, IAD, SEA, SAN, DFW, ORD, IAH, MCO, BOS, LGA, SFO, MIA, DCA and LGA where scheduling opportunities require something more than what the 737/A320 replacement will cover.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 12):
The 783 does not have 4000nm of range.....its more like 2500nm with a full load. Thats one of the big issues: does the 783 afford AA with enough flexibility to make acquiring the type interesting?

You can do any two Large Hub (not hubs but the top 30 airports) CONUS points in the -3 with a 75k payload. If DL bases them in ATL they can do a 90k payload to any west coast market. If AA puts them in DFW or ORD they can do the same.

[Edited 2007-08-04 03:51:56]

User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2977 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3999 times:

If India or China airport infrastructure goes the same way as in Japan, Indian and Chinese carriers could become 783 operators too.
Maybe in 2020, we'll be discussing MU/CZ/CA operating hourly 783 between PEK & SHA/PVG.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 16):
If India or China airport infrastructure goes the same way as in Japan, Indian and Chinese carriers could become 783 operators too.

 checkmark 

I have stated the same for some time, myself.

I wonder if KE might not become a 787-3 operator. ICN is very centrally located for services to Japan, China, and the northern parts of South Asia with a 787-3 even at MZFW.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

Quoting UPPERDECKFAN (Reply 9):
Also as an option to replace 757, although adding some capacity and range.

Isn't the 787 too large and expensive to be a good 757 replacement?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3712 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 18):
Isn't the 787 too large and expensive to be a good 757 replacement?

In general, yes. It is more likely that one of the 737RS models will have similar range and capacity to the 757-200.


User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 11):
That new multi billion dollar terminal AA just built at JFK only has about 6 787-8 capable gates (and the air bridges are all fixed, so it will cost them millions to adjust them now).

What so the new terminal only has 6 gates for the 777 also?? that seems jsut a bit small for this brand new big terminal when they have a lot of 767s and 777s leaving from JFK

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 12):
The 783 does not have 4000nm of range.....its more like 2500nm with a full load. Thats one of the big issues: does the 783 afford AA with enough flexibility to make acquiring the type interesting

Well 2500nm is still enough to get you to all of the Carib and latin america. But also mostly the A300s from JFK (and BOS still?) only go to the carib and MIA. MIA will have plenty of range for where the A300s fly to.

Will AA also buy more 783s just to use as Hub to Hub routes for max capacity?? You mostly see some heavies moving between AA's hubs....


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3003 times:

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 20):
Well 2500nm is still enough to get you to all of the Carib and latin america. But also mostly the A300s from JFK (and BOS still?) only go to the carib and MIA. MIA will have plenty of range for where the A300s fly to.

2500nm is very limiting......consider that airlines rarely use airplane anywhere near their operational limits; 2500nm on paper sound good but in the real world its problematic. For example, on paper, JetBlue should have no problem flying their A320s on transcon services, and I am sure that you have seen all of the threads concerning JetBlue making fuel stops on those flights and/or having to restrict loads on the flights.

But the key issue is flexibility; of course you are correct in that many flights out of MIA to the Carib/Latin America can be flown with the 783....but here is the potential problem: the same airplane that flies a MIA-SJU-MIA turn in the morning cannot fly a MIA-LIM-MIA run in the afternoon. Airlines opt for longer range airplanes to give them the flexbility to use the same type on a variety of routes and to avoid operational issues and headaches......sure a 752 can fly from TXL-EWR but it is a challenge for the dispatchers in Berlin....airlines like to avoid those challenges wherever possible.

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 20):
Will AA also buy more 783s just to use as Hub to Hub routes for max capacity?? You mostly see some heavies moving between AA's hubs....

Many of the hub to hub widebody flights utilize aircraft that would otherwise be sitting idle between long haul flights.....its an aircraft utilization issue more than anything else. Its unlikely that AA would purchase the 783 for this mission.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
So where will they park these ADG-V 787-8/9 aircraft when the existing domestic 767 gates can already support the ADG-IV 787-3? They start flying 787-8/9's all over the US then large hub airports had better start building some bigger gates.

You raise a really intersting issue and I dont know the answer. That being said, do you think that AA will buy an aircraft that is not ideal for its needs in order to avoid the logistical ""gate issue""? I dont think so, but I could be wrong.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 15):
You can do any two Large Hub (not hubs but the top 30 airports) CONUS points in the -3 with a 75k payload. If DL bases them in ATL they can do a 90k payload to any west coast market. If AA puts them in DFW or ORD they can do the same

You are going to have to help me with the numbers on this......but, the more general question, do you really think that AA or DL will buy a widebody aircraft that is more or less limited to domestic and caribbean services? Its a very difficult question to answer or predict, but I have my doubts. (I think that your opinion is different, and thats fine.) Question; could the 783 be used on JFK-LAX/SFO transcon services replacing 762s? That is, with a pax/cargo load on which AA can make lots of money?


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2554 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 21):
You raise a really intersting issue and I dont know the answer. That being said, do you think that AA will buy an aircraft that is not ideal for its needs in order to avoid the logistical ""gate issue""? I dont think so, but I could be wrong.
The upper end of Y1 will only seat 230 max. There are about 20 markets that will need a domestic 250 seater and this is where this aircraft will come into play. From an airport infrastructure standpoint will be required at airports where adding Y1 frequency is not possible and the -8/-9 wingspans cause a gate spacing problem. The key airports in the US, from an domestic gate infrastructure standpoint are:

Kennedy
La Guardia
Los Angeles
Miami
O'Hare
Phoenix
San Diego
San Francisco
Washington/National

The remaining are Large Hub airports where adding Y1 frequency causes a disconnect with the hub banks and a larger aircraft is the only real option.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 21):
You are going to have to help me with the numbers on this......but, the more general question, do you really think that AA or DL will buy a widebody aircraft that is more or less limited to domestic and caribbean services?

Yes. Look at domestic routes by these carriers where a 767-200, 767-300, 767-400 and 777-200 are used. These are all 787-3 routes. There will also be a handful of markets where the 757-200/300 is used that will require upgauging to meet demand. If they needed more range, I'm rather certain Boeing would oblige with a -3ER that stretches to about 3,500nm. It would require a MTOW increase of about 20k. I don't believe Hawaiian will be in the game as many of their 767's head off to the Pacific Rim making the -8/9 more practical. I'd take a bet that DL, AA, CO, NW and UA will be in that game though.

[Edited 2007-08-06 16:23:44]

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...
764's.... Who Else Will Order? posted Sun Jan 22 2006 16:51:07 by Warreng24
Who Will Order The 1000th B777 posted Fri Mar 23 2007 12:43:57 by EZYAirbus
When Will BA Order The B-787-800, B-747-ADV? posted Tue Oct 11 2005 04:43:03 by KC135TopBoom
Who Will Order The New Fokker 100? posted Fri Mar 19 2004 12:12:45 by Applepie81
Who Will Order The Next 717? posted Sun Apr 9 2000 14:52:07 by AA737-800
If NZ Drops HNL Who Else Will Operate? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 08:14:37 by ZKNBX
YX, Who Else Is In The Running posted Sat Sep 9 2006 02:08:16 by ATWZW170
If Delta Does NOT Order The 787-3... posted Fri Aug 4 2006 18:06:44 by 1337Delta764
Which Airlines Won't Order The 787? posted Mon Sep 19 2005 21:32:25 by FlyingHippo
Prediction: BA Will Order The A380 posted Fri May 20 2005 12:28:19 by Scotron11