Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Forget The 787-3. How About The 787-2?  
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8181 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In this forum, Keesje has been a proponent of something called the 787-5, which would be a 787-3 but with better range. While I like the concept, with around 10t of MEW difference between the 787-3 and 787-8, how relevant would such a model really be?

On Fleetbuzz.com, Keesje introduced the Greenliner - a twin-aisle narrowbody plane that would replace the two-class 757-300, 767-200ER and A300-600R with seating for 270. The advantage of the plane is that it would be lighter then the 787-3 with a shorter wingspan. He didn't give a length, but I am guessing it would be a 757-400 at 60m (so a bit longer then a 787-3).

Both concepts made me wonder if the real replacement would be a smaller 787 - the 787-2. Make it a 6m shrink of the 787-3 (so 51m), but instead of the quick and dirty weight-savings program from the 787-3, put some serious effort into it. MTOW would remain the 165t of the 787-3, but if you could knock the MEW down enough to increase the range at maximum payload from 2500km to 4500-5000km, then things get interesting. Even if you couldn't get it all back from an MEW cut, if you could keep MTOW growth low enough to stay with the wing and undercarriage of the 787-3 and a minimal thrust boost on the 787-3's engines to meet the target, that would be good enough.

A 4500-5000km maximum-payload range would cover all of the US and Canada as well as from the West Coast to Hawai'i. It would also allow any city in South America to reach any other city in South America and link any city in the EU with the Northern third of Africa. It would also allow QF to service all of Australia and New Zealand from SYD.

And if they could get 8000km out of a nominal payload (pax, plus bags, plus reasonable cargo), then you'd see all of Europe and Africa and almost all of Asia from DXB. The East Coast of North America would get you to Western Europe and Africa and a good part of South America. And Hawai'i would be close. The Central US could reach Hawai'i, much of South America, and the western edge of Europe and Africa. And NRT/ICN/BKK/SIN could reach all of Asia and India and most of Oceania/Australia.

LD3 positions would shrink from 28 to 20, so I would expect you would want to keep seating at 8Y both to lower weight and maximize underbelly cargo. So you'd be looking at, say, 230 people in two classes, which would be 10 LD3 positions for bags, leaving 10 open for cargo.

The 787-3 wing is already a hair under the 52m limit for FAA Group IV and ICAO Code E so carrying it over to the 787-2 would allow the plane to fit into all existing 767, A300 and 757 gates.

And the biggest advantage of all is it would leverage the rest of the 787 family in an airline's fleet planning, something the 787-3 really cannot do.

52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8061 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
but instead of the quick and dirty weight-savings program from the 787-3, put some serious effort into it. MTOW would remain the 165t of the 787-3, but if you could knock the MEW down enough to increase the range at maximum payload from 2500km to 4500-5000km, then things get interesting.

Airbus did something like this in creating the A310, a shrunk, lightened, rewinged, and otherwise revised A300B4. The A310 (especially the -300) was more useful than the A300 for many operators because it had better range, but it was not a notably efficient plane, and it was effectively killed off by the 767-200ER/300ER despite its cargo-hauling advantage over the Boeing products. Airbus evidently was unable to find enough weight savings to fundamentally change the A300's economics, as you seem to be suggesting Boeing could do to the 787-3.

No previous shrink I can think of (A318, 737-600, MD-87, A310, L1011-500, 747SP) has managed to be more efficient than its larger variant. Where would you find enough weight savings to change this for the 787-2?

I share Keesje's enthusiasm for a 787-4. If Boeing could keep the MEW of the 787-3 about the same and find just enough extra structural strength to boost MTOW enough to give the aircraft 3000nm range at MZFW or 4500nm range with full pax load in a two-class configuration, I think it could attract a lot of US domestic and transatlantic operators for whom the current 787-3 is range challenged. Think AA A300/762 replacement, DL 767-300 replacement (although I'd expect DL to reduce its level of widebody domestic flying), and extensive 767-300ER replacement in shorter transatlantic markets. Such a plane would have fantastic field performance and so could be a growth option for many current 757-200 services.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7968 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The problem with the 787-3 was it was optimized for missions within the Japanese home islands, which is why it only needs to fly 2500km at maximum payload. And NH and JL didn't seem to mind if it was heavy for that mission, since Boeing didn't really spend any effort on making it lighter then the 787-8.

The last dataset I had for the 787-3's MEW was 101t, but I believe that figure is low based on MEW creep for the 787-8. However, even so, it is likely no worse then 10t (so 104t to the 787-8's 114t). For that 10t in MEW, you give up 55t in MTOW (165t vs. 220t). So I suppose it could be possible for Boeing to raise the 787-4's MTOW to 190t while raising MEW to 109t. Assuming all that MEW went to strengthening the center wingbox to allow the center tank to be filled more, how much range do you gain? Engines will also need to climb in thrust from 54,000lbs for the 787-3 to closer to the 64,000lbs of the 787-8, especially if you do not extend the wingspan from 52m to the 60m of the 787-8 as the engines will need to generate more thrust to keep field performance from degrading.

But wouldn't that makes the 787-4 the 777-200 to the 787-8's 777-200ER? Similar weight, similar thrust, similar capacity, but a good deal less range? Boeing has sold 88 772s and 430 77Es to date.

I want the 787-2 to be the A330-300 to the 787-4's 777-200. The A333 was 28t lighter in MEW so it could use lower-thrust engines for better efficiency or engines of similar thrust for better performance. And Airbus has sold 321 A333s as of the end of last month and I believe has many more yet to be firmed.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 7926 times:

I think in this size a single-aisle would be more efficient.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7874 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 3):
I think in this size a single-aisle would be more efficient.

Probably, but would a 54-60m Y1 be something the airlines want?


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7857 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Probably, but would a 54-60m Y1 be something the airlines want?

If it would be more efficient than a 787-2, then the airlines would want it more than they would want the latter.


User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7776 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
If it would be more efficient than a 787-2, then the airlines would want it more than they would want the latter.

I'm still mystified by the failure of DL, BA, and LH (who do a significant amount of short-range widebody flying) to order 757-300s en masse. Whatever kept them away from the 757-300 (cargo? turn times? passenger perceptions?) would seem likely to keep them away from a large new-generation narrowbody as well.

In any case, I doubt a new narrowbody larger than the 757-200 will be developed. I don't think either Boeing or Airbus will go with two separate next-gen narrowbodies, and I don't think any plane that can efficiently replace a 737-800 can be scaled up to 757-300 or larger size without much expensive revision. I think the ~250 seat (2-class) market will be a black hole for awhile, bracketed on one side by 210-seat 757 replacements and on the other by the smaller 787 variants.

If either maker does address the market, I'd expect it to be Airbus, as the A350-800 will probably not be an optimal product and they will have a large gap between it and any new-generation narrowbody. Perhaps we can dust off the A300NG threads again.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 5):
If it would be more efficient than a 787-2, then the airlines would want it more than they would want the latter.

True.

So assuming Boeing starts at 40m for Y1-100 (the 737-800), that would make a 45m Y1-200, a 50m Y1-300 and a 55m Y1-400. Figure they stay at six abreast with a no more then 12" wider cabin (to allow for 18" seats and a 6" wider aisle), you'd see two-class capacities of:

Y1-100: 160
Y1-200: 190
Y1-300: 220
Y1-400: 250

That way, you're only 40 seats away from a two-class 787-3 (in 8Y).

Use the same wing root and just play with the extensions, ala the 787-8 and 787-9. You'd likely need no more then about 5,000lbs of thrust difference between the -100 and -400 so engines across the range are cake. You'd be able to use AKH containers and doing manual cargo loading in the bays would be easier thanks to more volume to work in.


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 894 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7721 times:



Quoting Zvezda (Reply 3):
I think in this size a single-aisle would be more efficient.

Efficient, as in aerodynamic efficiency, perhaps. But overall, I am not convinced. Turnaround times, cargo capacity, potential for cargo variants/conversions, and passenger comfort are all greater on a widebody. And by offering 787/350/380-era passenger comfort, a widebody can offer greater RASM and product standardization.


User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3435 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7628 times:



Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
a twin-aisle narrowbody

unless the seating was 1-1-1 it would be hard for the a/c to be considered 'narrowbody'!!

AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 894 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7609 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Y1-100: 160
Y1-200: 190
Y1-300: 220
Y1-400: 250

I find it hard to believe that Boeing is about to give up on the 120-150 seat narrowbody market.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7572 times:

787-2...how big is the market for such an aircraft? Is there another market that would yield a superior ROI for what is more or less new design?

Y1...we are talking about a market of more than 12,000 aircraft, right? Why cover the whole market with just one family of aircraft that are good performers across all subsegements but don't really excel in any, i.e. a compromised broadband design? What if someone picks a subsegment worth 1,000-2,000 airframes and does an excellent tailor-made design for that?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7532 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AA1818 (Reply 9):
unless the seating was 1-1-1 it would be hard for the a/c to be considered 'narrowbody'!!

2+2+2 was the profile in Economy and 2+1+2 in First Class / Business Class.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 10):
I find it hard to believe that Boeing is about to give up on the 120-150 seat narrowbody market.

Why not? The 737-700 and 737-800 have identical trip costs in many cases for many carriers, so they're buying the bigger model. And both Embraer and Bombardier have planes either in service or in development that match the capacity of both the 737-600 and 737-700 while providing sufficient range for many (if not most) of the the missions they currently fly.

Even with CFRP, a 35m Y1 is very likely to be heavier and less efficient then the C Series or E-Jets unless you are operating it at it's greater maximum range. And at that point, the 40m Y1 is likely going to offer similar trip costs and therefore better economics thanks to those "free" seats you can sell.


User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7486 times:

I can't think of many operators that have a 767-200 that would not rather have a 767-200ER instead. I can't think of many operators that have a 767-300 that would not rather have a 767-300ER instead. I can't think of many operators that have a 777-200 that would not rather have a 777-200ER instead. I can't think of many operators that have a 777-300 that would not rather have a 777-300ER instead. I can't think of many operators that have a 737-900 that would not rather have a 737-900ER instead. Etc, etc....

History has proven that once a longer range version of an widebody airplane (and even some narrowbody ones) hits the market, they become by far the more desirable. Resale prices are stronger, fleet flexibility is higher, revenue potential is much higher, inneficiencies on shorter routes are of little consequence for the very fact that they are "short" routes.

With the 787, 748i and A380, Boeing and Airbus just faced those realities and stated out with an 8,000nm nominal range design point and got presure for even more.

It is beyond me, why anyone has such a hard on for a shorter range 787-8. Beyond the narrow Japanese orders (which were needed to launch the program in the post 9/11 industry order downturn) there is little market for these variants.

I'll go further. I'm betting that Boeing is working on trying to get the japanese airlines to switch their orders to 787-8s. I hope they succeed. I'd rather see a 787-10 introduced in its place.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineAmtrakGuy From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7477 times:



Quoting Scipio (Reply 10):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Y1-100: 160
Y1-200: 190
Y1-300: 220
Y1-400: 250

I find it hard to believe that Boeing is about to give up on the 120-150 seat narrowbody market.

Or 100 - 120 (or 150) seats.

I think WN would like to have large number of planes with range of 100 to 150 seats for smaller markets or frequent runs (i.e. DAL - HOU every half hour, evenings, or weekend flights).


User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7471 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
What if someone picks a subsegment worth 1,000-2,000 airframes and does an excellent tailor-made design for that?

I think the sticking point there is who gets to the market first, and how much of the market is actually left for the tailor made design. Sometimes the perfect jet isn't bought as other factors come into play, fleet commonality, fleet usage, etc.

An airline may choose to go all 787 variants because although they may not be 100% perfect for every task, they have a common platform to simplify everything for them and the long term #s show the compromises do not affect the $$ then it might seem the way to go.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7451 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
787-2...how big is the market for such an aircraft?

Likely larger then the 787-3. It would probably be a big hit with the US airlines who could replace their 767-200ER and 767-300ER fleets. LH could use it as an A300-600R replacement. It would have an edge on the A330-200 for medium-haul missions, just as a 250t 787-10 would on the A330-300.

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
Y1...we are talking about a market of more than 12,000 aircraft, right? Why cover the whole market with just one family of aircraft that are good performers across all subsegements but don't really excel in any, i.e. a compromised broadband design? What if someone picks a subsegment worth 1,000-2,000 airframes and does an excellent tailor-made design for that?

The 737-800 has outsold the other three members of the family combined by over 850 units. At 160 seats, it is clearly the sweet-spot of the 737 market. It is much the same for the A320 family, where the A320 model has outsold her combined sisters by over 900 units. If every airline that ordered both the A319 and A320 knew when they placed those orders that the trip costs would be similar, they would have ordered far more A320s then A319s.

As such, I think 160 is a pretty reasonable starting point. The next step down would be 130 and I think that is too close to future offerings from Embraer and Bombardier. Economies of scale work as well for them as they do for Boeing and Airbus. If they top out at 130 in two classes they can leverage their strengths in the 100 and 70 seat markets, as well. This leaves Boeing to leverage their strengths in the 160-250 seat market.

Also, the more product lines you come out with, the more you muddy the waters and offer customers too many choices, which makes their own planning more difficult and increases their total operating costs. If the 737-900ER and 757-200 had been offered at the same time, would the 757-200 still scored 900 sales? I tend to think not - and by a good margin not.

I think Boeing would rather sell 4000 units of a four-member family then 6000 units of a six-member family that cost twice as much to develop as the four-member one.



************

737-600 Sales: 69
737-700 Sales: 1372
737-800 Sales: 2522
737-900 Sales: 221 [Includes -900 and -900ER]

A318 Sales: 103
A319 Sales: 1605
A320 Sales: 3280
A321 Sales: 653


User currently offlineScipio From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 894 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7421 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Why not?

Several reasons:

- The 124-seat A319 and 150-seat A320 are the best-selling A320 family members, and the 162-seat 737-800 has been the best-selling 737NG. So, the meat of the narrowbody market seems to be in the 120-160 passenger size range. A new narrowbody should be optimized for that range, not for 200 seats.

- There is no point in just surrendering any market Embraer and Bombardier enter into. That's a road to oblivion.

- With new technologies, it should be possible for Boeing to offer narrowbodies that are more capable and at least as economical as anything currently planned by Embraer and Bombardier. In addition, it would come with a Boeing brand and with fleet commonality with larger models.

- I refuse to fly in a 250-seat narrowbody  Smile

I don't want to make my way down to row 45 in economy class, or if I'm in Business/First I dread having 230 economy class passengers huffing and puffing by for however long it takes to get all those people in through a single aisle.

Scipio.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7414 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 13):
It is beyond me, why anyone has such a hard on for a shorter range 787-8. Beyond the narrow Japanese orders...there is little market for these variants.

Part of it is we're slaves to the past. The A300, A310, and 762ER sold in the past, so we feel that they must be replaced in the future, even though the fact all three lines are no longer offered (essentially so, in the case of the 762ER, based on demand).  Smile

Also, we don't like gaps. We see the 100-seat gap between the 737-900ER and (two-class) 787-8 and the 150-seat gap between the A350-1000 and the A380-800 and we invent a plane to fill it, even if the airlines themselves knew perfectly well up-front what kind of gap their fleet-purchasing decisions were going to entail.  Smile

Quote:
I'll go further. I'm betting that Boeing is working on trying to get the japanese airlines to switch their orders to 787-8s. I hope they succeed. I'd rather see a 787-10 introduced in its place.

It would certainly make more sense for Boeing and would give the Japanese more flexibility with their fleet down the road if local market traffic conditions change.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7384 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Scipio (Reply 17):
The 124-seat A319 and 150-seat A320 are the best-selling A320 family members, and the 162-seat 737-800 has been the best-selling 737NG. So, the meat of the narrowbody market seems to be in the 120-160 passenger size range. A new narrowbody should be optimized for that range, not for 200 seats.

And yet the A320 and 738 have outsold the A319 and 73G almost 2:1. And those figures are only widening now that enough in-service data is on hand to show that the A320 and 738 often cost about as much to fly as the A319 and 73G but offer more revenue potential.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 17):
There is no point in just surrendering any market Embraer and Bombardier enter into. That's a road to oblivion.

You pick your battles. Why create a PoS plane that will sell in the scores just to spite the opposition? I think the fact that the A318 and 736 sold so whizz-poor only emboldened Embraer and Bombardier to make a play for the 110-seat market in the first place.

Draw your line in the sand where you are stronger and fight them there. If that is 160 seats instead of 130, so be it.

Quoting Scipio (Reply 17):
With new technologies, it should be possible for Boeing to offer narrowbodies that are more capable and at least as economical as anything currently planned by Embraer and Bombardier. In addition, it would come with a Boeing brand and with fleet commonality with larger models.

I honestly do not think so, especially if your passenger capacity range between the smallest and the largest is going to be upwards of 120 seats, as it would be from 35m to 55m.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7353 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
now that enough in-service data is on hand to show that the A320 and 738 often cost about as much to fly as the A319 and 73G but offer more revenue potential.

So why do you want to have a 787-2 then if there's a slightly larger -3 or, like Baron95 suggests, you'd better take an -8 outright?


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7305 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
The A300, A310, and 762ER sold in the past, so we feel that they must be replaced in the future, even though the fact all three lines are no longer offered (essentially so, in the case of the 762ER, based on demand).

A nextgen 767-2ER would most certainly provide better economics and product on these trans atlantics than the 757-200's in use now. Probably be the real game changer in terms of openign up point to point routes. A plane of this size with better range capability than the 767-2ER opens up a whole new world of potential markets, even more so than a 787 or A350. Gives you flexibility like HNL to MCI, JFK to CGN.

The 787-2...

737RS - Two Class arrangements

110
134
162
196
234

[Edited 2007-12-21 13:55:34]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7264 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 20):


Quoting Stitch in Reply 19:
the A320 and 738 often cost about as much to fly as the A319 and 73G but offer more revenue potential.

So why do you want to have a 787-2 then if there's a slightly larger -3 or, like Baron95 suggests, you'd better take an -8 outright?

If the A319 and A320 had similar trip costs, but the A319 flew 5000km and the A320 flew 2500km, I think the A319 likely would have sold better.

The 787-3 can barely make it from SAN to SEA with a full load, to say nothing of SAN-BOS. The 787-2 could do that. And if the 787-2 had an MEW some 20t lighter than the 787-8 and your mission profile didn't need a plane to fly 15,000km, but instead only 7,500km, the 787-2 should prove to be the more efficient platform.

Also, a 787-8 will not fit in an FAA Group IV or ICAO Code E gate. So if you have gates spaced like that, you cannot put two 787-8s side by side, though you could do so with two 787-2s/787-3s.

[Edited 2007-12-21 14:00:27]

User currently offlineZiggyStardust From Canada, joined Jul 2007, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7246 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):

I think Boeing would rather sell 4000 units of a four-member family then 6000 units of a six-member family that cost twice as much to develop as the four-member one.

I disagree. I bet Boeing would rather sell 6000 units. Suppose the 2000 extra units sell for $40m each. That's 80 billion in revenue. If the additional cost is $5b (aside: I doubt the incremental cost to develop the two extra members would double the project cost), it's still profitable to do.

Furthermore, suppose by creating members customized to their mission, Boeing don't need to discount as much to sell their product. If they can sell each plane for $1m more, that's $4-6b extra in profits.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 7245 times:

Something like this would be very interesting, right now the 787-3 seems like a pretty good fit to replace the A300-767-300. Especially for domestic routes. This would especially be for DL and AA who use widebodies domestically, especially DL. And if this plane can make it to hawaii then i could see carriers like UA picking some up as well. To me it seems the reason the 787-3 is not selling so well now is because most airlines want to put their money into planes used for international routes.
Take DL for example. They use mostly 767-300ER for international flights. And 767-300 (non ER) for domestic. I doubt they would want to spend that much money on 787-3s (at this time) for domestic flights, the longest are around 4-5 hours (with in the US). What would seem more likely is to have the 787-8 replace the 767-300ERs and move those now replaced 767s to the domestic routes to replace older 767s. Their other option, since an ER variant on a domestic route is kind of pointless, is to sell the -300ER to other airlines and use that money towards 787-3s for domestics.

Depending on how much work would need to go into a 787-2 boeing will decide if it is worth it. It seems more like the large end of the Y1 would move up to cover the 757-762 instead of making the 787 smaller.


25 Post contains links AA1818 : Hey Stitch Keesje thought this might be helpful to the thread! ...from Keesje http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/greenliner-1.jpg its
26 Nycbjr : that looks great! what happened to Keesje why was he banned?
27 Scipio : Yes, but you don't win wars by avoiding battle altogether or by giving ground wherever you come under pressure. I think part of your problem is that
28 Post contains images Stitch : Why didn't Airbus build both the A350 and the A350XWB? Because it isn't cheap. The A350 would have cost upwards of $5 billion - and that was still us
29 ZiggyStardust : I agree if there are two different fuselage/wings involved, etc. What if it's a simple shrink/stretch like the 737-600/A318 or 767-400? How much was
30 Rheinbote : Still don't get why you ask for a shrink of the -3. You can get the desired range out of the -3 by simply adding (back) fuel capacity, adjusting MTOW
31 Post contains images Stitch : At that point, we have the 757/767 again and I am not sure Boeing wants to go down that road a second time. Now, a lot of airlines have large investm
32 Stitch : I imagine what would really drive the feasibility of a 787-3HGW/787-4 would be both gate spacing issues and field performance for the 787-3's 52m win
33 Scipio : Very simple. Because they do not have unlimited resources and because the planes would have been too close in capabilities. The A350XWB negated the n
34 Post contains images Stitch : Thank you. I rest my case.
35 Post contains images Scipio : Not exactly. The appropriate comparison is with the 737/757-767 lineup. Y1 as you envisage it would be uncompetitive as a 160-seater (your Y1-100 wou
36 Stitch : I'd ask is there even a 250 seat short-range market anymore? Nobody seemed to be screaming when Boeing closed the 757 line or Airbus the A300-600R. An
37 Scipio : Depends on what Airbus would offer. Suppose Boeing goes with your 797, while Airbus reacts with a two-product strategy along the lines I suggest. The
38 Boeing7E7 : Its because they have a sufficient number of these birds for now and Boeing has been talking to them about Y1 since they announced the closure of the
39 Baron95 : I know - we all do that. But remember that before the 767, there was a much larger gap between the 727 and the 747 on Boeing's line up and they did f
40 Baron95 : Are you sure? Boeing's net profit is under 10% of sales. So on $80B on sales you can expect net profits to be under $8B, lets say $6B. If it were to
41 Thegeek : Not too bad if those figures are post a discounted cash flow analysis. You've just doubled your money with change in real terms, and kept yourself in
42 Post contains images SailorOrion : LH flew the 757-300 briefly on domestic high-density routes (mostly MUC-FRA) and found that the plane wall ill-designed for their purpose, apparently
43 Planesailing : A lot of airliners, from the past and to some degree some of the current crop, came from specific airlines requesting an aircraft to suit their opera
44 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Not according to Boeing. The B-787-3 has a range of 4650km (2500nm) with 330 pax and 5650km (3050nm) with 290 pax now. That easily makes BOS-SAN, whi
45 Stitch : Not according to Boeing. I should have been more clear in that "full payload" means "maximum payload/payload at MZFW". At that limit, a 787-3 can onl
46 Post contains images SeaBosDca : Another factor is that B6 is flying longer transcons than UA. Originating from BOS instead of IAD adds 150 to 250 nm depending on where you're flying
47 Stitch : That would solve a great deal of issues, and likely satisfy the Japanese as a 787-3 replacement, saving Boeing the trouble of building and certifying
48 KC135TopBoom : That is correct. That is correct, too. Additionally, B6 flys to the LA area. BOS-LAX is 2269nm, while IAD-SFO is 2102nm (according to great circle ma
49 Sh0rtybr0wn : So what if Boeing built a 787-9 with 3 winglets. Even better. The -9 will have extra fuel capacity and be certified for extra weight, but in terms of
50 Seabosdca : Given enormous MTOW-based landing fees at Japanese airports, the -3's artificially low MTOW is exactly what makes it so appealing to the Japanese ope
51 Stitch : Not sure what field performance would be like with a 53m wing, though... Boeing could certainly artificially de-certify the MTOW (which would also sa
52 Sh0rtybr0wn : Do you think even with higher thrust 789 engines it would need too much room to take off and then have to fly too fast to land because of the shorter
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...
How Much Has Underestimating The 787 Cost Airbus? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 16:50:10 by Art
How Boeing Can Sell The 787 So Cheap posted Mon Dec 19 2005 22:48:24 by BoomBoom
Which Airline Is Going To Get The Rollout A380&787 posted Mon Sep 17 2007 21:03:45 by TrijetFan1
The A350 Is Not A 787 Competitor posted Mon Sep 17 2007 03:10:37 by DL767captain
The 787 Is The Next Evolutionary Step posted Tue Jul 3 2007 15:53:15 by EI321
Where In The World Are The 787 Parts? posted Fri May 4 2007 18:59:51 by IAD787
Why Is The 787 Not As Wide As The 777? posted Sun Apr 15 2007 17:53:31 by JAM747
Could The 787 Have Been Conceived In The 1980's posted Thu Apr 12 2007 20:05:21 by CJAContinental
Doesn't The A350 Look The 787? posted Sun Jan 7 2007 01:06:57 by FL370
Any News About The Design-progress On The 787? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 10:00:23 by Beaucaire