Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO: 764 -v- 788?  
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12478 posts, RR: 34
Posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Just wondering how the 788 will compare in capacity to the 764s currently operated by Continental. I know the 787 is considerably wider, but how much longer (if at all?)

Has CO released any info about likely configs?

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLesismore From United States of America, joined May 2007, 142 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

Actually the 764 is longer than the 788, by about 15 ft (764 - 201ft 4in and 788 is 186ft). The 788 is about 30in wider (764 - 186in and 788 - 216in). Not sure how that will translate into seating capacity increases. Currently CO 764's seat 235, and according to Boeing the 788 will seat 227 in a 2-class config with premium first class seating, probably very similar to CO BizFirst.


I'm a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down. - Abe Lincoln
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2661 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Economy seating will go from seven to eight or nine abreast and Business First will likely go 2+2+2. So total capacity will likely be similar to slightly more...

User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2092 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2549 times:

Has there been any update about CO using 8 or 9 abreast on the 787? Since the initial use will be international long haul, I would guess they would use 8 abreast and then go to 9 after the memory of the 767 has faded. I am sure they would not want to have a brand new widebody that is less comfortable than their old 762s. Apparently the claimed 20% efficiency improvement over the 762 will only be reached with 9 abreast and a chunk of that 20% is actually based on claims of lower maintenance costs rather than lower fuel burn.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2511 times:

CO has 8 787-8s and 17 787-9s on order, the 767-400 is probably closer in size to the 787-9.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2410 times:



Quoting AADC10 (Reply 3):
widebody that is less comfortable than their old 762s.

Old? All of their 767-200ER aircraft were delivered in 2000 and 2001.


User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9449 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2365 times:



Quoting Flight152 (Reply 5):


Old? All of their 767-200ER aircraft were delivered in 2000 and 2001.

i love it.........CO's 764s are older than there 762s  Wink



yep.
User currently offlineLesismore From United States of America, joined May 2007, 142 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2196 times:

FYI...NW will also be operating the 787, pretty sure its the -800 and they have already disclosed that it will seat 221 passengers (36 WBC and 185 coach). I'm assuming the NW and CO seating configs will be very similar, and so will their capacities.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
the 767-400 is probably closer in size to the 787-9.

Maybe in length, but 764 will be a lot narrower.



I'm a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down. - Abe Lincoln
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Suprisingly, the 788 will have a similar seating capacity to the 764 but weigh ~10t more.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

The 764 at CO is 35/200 or 20/236.

Boeing have pulled the 787 configurations off of the pdf at their website again, so there will be another revision to the layout.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Economy seating will go from seven to eight or nine abreast and Business First will likely go 2+2+2. So total capacity will likely be similar to slightly more...

Both true, assuming CO doesn't have a different design for the J product. Assuming standard 55-60" pitch seats, they will easily put 2+2+2 at 21" width.

At 6 abreast, it would be 6 rows of 6 (vs. 7 rows of 5) for 36 or 4 rows of 6 (vs. 4 rows of 5) for 24 if they didn't want to split the cabin. I suppose they would also consider 4 rows of 6 + 1 row of 4 for 28 seats, which I think can fit between doors 1 and 2 based on old diagrams, leaving the rest of the plane for 9 abreast Y. 230 seats would fit at 9 abreast 32" pitch with 24-28J, or 200 seats and 36J. That makes the 788 almost a direct replacement in capacity for either 764 configuration. Low premium 254-258 seats v. 256, and hi-premium 236 seats v. 235.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
CO has 8 787-8s and 17 787-9s on order, the 767-400 is probably closer in size to the 787-9.

The 788 is closer in size to the 764.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 8):
Suprisingly, the 788 will have a similar seating capacity to the 764 but weigh ~10t more.

Why is that surprising? It will also fly 50% further, carry LD3s side by side in numbers currently only seen in 773s and A340NGs, and fly 764 routes more efficiently due to better wing and engines.  Smile



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3209 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1897 times:



Quoting Lesismore (Reply 7):
FYI...NW will also be operating the 787, pretty sure its the -800 and they have already disclosed that it will seat 221 passengers (36 WBC and 185 coach).

Actually, this number may have been revised yet again. Since NW intends to use the 787 on it's more premium longhaul routes - those that overfly NRT - they intend to put in more WBC, in the ballpark of 48 WBC and ~150 coach~. If that number sticks, NW is going to have very low-density 788's!!!

And yes, you are correct that NW has the 787-8 ordered. Not to nitpick, but "800" is incorrect designation. NW's customer code of 51 will be applied on delivery though, so they will be 787-851's.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1857 times:



Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 10):
Actually, this number may have been revised yet again. Since NW intends to use the 787 on it's more premium longhaul routes - those that overfly NRT - they intend to put in more WBC, in the ballpark of 48 WBC and ~150 coach~. If that number sticks, NW is going to have very low-density 788's!!!

My guess is that the original number was with 8Y and they will switch to 9Y and you'll see 48J + about 180Y = 225-230



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1687 times:

Have any airlines decided on either 8Y or 9Y yet for their 787s?


717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1682 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting FL787 (Reply 12):
Have any airlines decided on either 8Y or 9Y yet for their 787s?

The last time Boeing commented, they noted about 2/3rds were moving towards 9-abreast, but I believe that was a year or two ago.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1676 times:



Quoting FL787 (Reply 12):
Have any airlines decided on either 8Y or 9Y yet for their 787s?

Most are going 9Y and some that even talked about 8Y at first have now sadly switched to 9Y, like CO...  Sad

With the growth of the premium seat size, it's the only way to keep CASM down with less Y floor area: cram in seats in Y.

Now Y+ is being marketed by Boeing as 3-2-3 rather than 2-3-2, since 18.5" wide Y+ seems to be the new norm out there, and 19" seats don't offer much when it's pitch that matters more for Y+.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

Is 2-5-2 a realistic option on the 787 or does that conflict with the overhead bins or IFE or something?

I'm probably one of the few people who actually prefers it over 3-3-3.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Why is that surprising? It will also fly 50% further, carry LD3s side by side in numbers currently only seen in 773s and A340NGs, and fly 764 routes more efficiently due to better wing and engines.

Maybe paradoxically would've been a better term, considering the materials used.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31013 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1621 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15):
Is 2-5-2 a realistic option on the 787 or does that conflict with the overhead bins or IFE or something?

It is not shown as an option on the 787-8 Airport Compatibility Guide, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.


User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5486 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1595 times:



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15):
Is 2-5-2 a realistic option on the 787 or does that conflict with the overhead bins or IFE or something?

2-5-2 (or 3-4-2) does not work well with many current IFE systems because it requires 4 control boxes per row rather than 3. I would expect such restrictions to be less important in the future.

I'm not holding my breath... I prefer 3-3-3 anyway.  duck   flamed 


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1526 times:



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 15):
Maybe paradoxically would've been a better term, considering the materials used.

 Smile How about, seemingly paradoxically, as it would seem that heavier means less efficient or shorter range, when that's not been born out by the advance in technology in commercial aviation.

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 17):
I'm not holding my breath... I prefer 3-3-3 anyway.

I prefer 2-4-3, even though I've never flown on it. But the concept sounds compelling. One double excuse me lots of seats for couples, seats for families of 3 or 4, ability to lie down fully on empty flights with a 75" bed in the section of 4, no dreaded double excuse me middle seat like in 2-5-2.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
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...
CO 764 In SVO? posted Thu Sep 28 2006 04:15:13 by Cessna057
CO 764 Service To HNL posted Fri Sep 8 2006 17:16:53 by MSYtristar
Hey! CLE To Get An Unexpected CO 764 posted Mon Jun 26 2006 20:40:55 by Falcon84
CO 764 66057 In CLE Today (12/30) posted Fri Dec 30 2005 22:31:58 by SWACLE
CO 764 In LAS 12-21 posted Wed Dec 21 2005 12:26:16 by CALMSP
CO 764 In FLL 12/20 posted Tue Dec 20 2005 11:29:58 by CALMSP
TK A343 And CO 764 At MAN Today? posted Tue Oct 18 2005 16:12:45 by Gkirk
CO 764 Now In HKG posted Mon Oct 3 2005 01:17:37 by N754PR
CO 764 At SVO May 22 2005, Anyone Explain? posted Sun Jul 24 2005 17:08:22 by TWA902fly
CO 764 & DL 772 Due In FLL Sat Pm posted Sat Apr 2 2005 22:38:44 by Falcon flyer