SQ6807 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2008, 163 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7788 times:
I note that the 787-3 has considerably less orders than either of its longer range counterparts. At present only NH and JL have placed orders. Is there any hope of more orders from other operators outside of Japan?
A couple of, potentially misinformed, possibles maybe:
LH to replace the AB6s for routes like FRA-IST.
One the Middle Eastern carriers as a dedicated sub-fleet for gulf/sub-continent flights.
DL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7766 times:
I think Boeing has been in talks with the US carriers like UA and DL who use wide bodies on domestic routes and the airlines have siad they will order it when they have the money, seems like the only reason they would keep it around, to me it seems like they should do a little more work and make it a true 767-300 replacement
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7704 times:
Last year I suggested adding range ( Boeing 787-5 ) might make it a more flexible investment for many airlines. I think the 787-3 is too much range restricted. I doesn't have to be a 8000nm aircraft but 2500nm..
Range 787-3 : 2,500 - 3,050 nm ( 4,650 - 5,650 km)
Range 787-8 : 7,650 - 8,200 nm (14,200 - 15,200 km)
Range 787-5 : 4,500 - 5,000 nm ( 8,400 - 9,300 km)
SQ6807 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2008, 163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7682 times:
I know that LCCs have traditionally focussed on narrow boday aircraft but I have to wonder just a little whether the 783 might be of use for some of them. Carriers like Ryanair typically fly routes which legacy carriers service with narrowbodies, but that isn't true of AK in asia. Legacy carriers routinely fly several widebody frequencies on routes like KUL-BKK, HKG-SIN, SIN-CGK etc. which gives me cause to wonder whether locos would be well advised to do the same. Surely the loco could would have even *lo*wer *co*sts if it were able to utilise a full 783?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28623 posts, RR: 84 Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7585 times:
Quoting SQ6807 (Thread starter): Is there any hope of more orders from other operators outside of Japan?
It could work for China and India domestically.
It would also bring much of North Asia and China into range of ICN, so KE or OZ could conceivably use it for "local" service.
However, I tend to think NH and JL will be the only carriers to operate it on a regular basis.
Quoting ANstar (Reply 1): From memory wasn't their an issue with getting EU certification for the 787-3 and thus no orders?
Boeing feels the certification fee the EU is demanding for the 787-3 is too high so until they get any orders for the model in the EU, they will save the money.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 3): Last year I suggested adding range ( Boeing 787-5 ) might make it a more flexible investment for many airlines.
And I created the "787-2" which would be a shrink of the 787-3 with serious efforts made at reducing the MEW so range at maximum payload would rise from the 2500km of the 787-3 to 4500-5000km. The plane would also fit in all current A300, 757 and 767 gates.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7872 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7567 times:
I think Boeing is looking at building a lower-MTOW 787-9 with a range of around 5,200 nm. That would be a very hot seller, since it would replace not only the 767-300 but also the A300B4 models. Here in the USA, a lower-weight 787-9 would certainly be very viable as a 767 replacement and to replace the aging A300B4-600R fleet of AA.
CALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 2422 posts, RR: 9 Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7202 times:
The 787-3 is way too range restricted for any American carrier. It has on 2500 nm range, less than the 738 and doesn't appear to be a reliable transcon aircraft. Even the 772A model can make Europe, but no one is interested in that aircraft when longer range models are available.
The Boeing website highlights all coach configurations, the 787-3 is clearly marketing the aircraft to Japan. Its purely a specialty aircraft that no one will buy in any numbers. If a 763ER range variant could be produced at a significant cost reduction vs. 787-8/9s, then you may get some interested parties.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6553 times:
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 7): I think Boeing is looking at building a lower-MTOW 787-9 with a range of around 5,200 nm. That would be a very hot seller, since it would replace not only the 767-300 but also the A300B4 models. Here in the USA, a lower-weight 787-9 would certainly be very viable as a 767 replacement and to replace the aging A300B4-600R fleet of AA.
If Boeing is able to get a substantial amount of weight out & can make everything lighter, a (nine abreast) 787-9 medium range version could sure become a good aircraft for domestic US and transatlantic / south american routes.
RayChuang, as far as I know the current planned 787-9 was beefed up to offer more range then planned, stimulated by airlines like QF. Making it lighter would maybe make it become more of a stretched 787-8 with same MTOW etc.
Having the 787-3 wings would enable it to fit the many cat D gates everywhere. That would make it a kind of stretched 787-5 Sounds like a good idea anyway. More capasity for growth, gate commonality and improved fuel efficiency. Maybe the Japanese would take it instead of their 787-3s.. It could perfectly fit airlines like AA, Co and Delta.
Recently I thought of a A330 version following the same lines of your light 787-9. A stretched 330-400 with new generation engines. Lighter then the new A350 which are optimized fo long haul. A cheap low risk medium range people mover..
Question is if you don't need 8000nm, are you still willing to fly around the required aircraft structure with oil prices going $100 / barrel.. Maybe their is a niche that can/will be filled in by Boeing and Airbus (without very high investments / short time to market).
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1492 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5860 times:
The plane is too specifically tailored to Japanese requirements. It can only be attractive to like-minded airlines, ie, US domestic carriers. Even then, its restricted abilities will make for unattractive resale values in the future. In my opinion, Boeing got stuck with the 787-3 because they need a substantial launch order to kick-start the 787 after the Sonic Cruiser debacle, regardless of the variant's global attractiveness. It's a business decision, and not a good one in the restricted context of the -3, but it's been more than worthwhile given the overall interest/backlog of the -8/9.
797charter From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3544 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): Boeing feels the certification fee the EU is demanding for the 787-3 is too high so until they get any orders for the model in the EU, they will save the money.
You are right.
But I think it could work as a fine 753 replacement - for many European charter operators the range could be sufficient from Scandinavia to the Canary Islands.
But that is not the way it should be...
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16313 posts, RR: 87 Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3430 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): And I created the "787-2" which would be a shrink of the 787-3 with serious efforts made at reducing the MEW so range at maximum payload would rise from the 2500km of the 787-3 to 4500-5000km.
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 7): I think Boeing is looking at building a lower-MTOW 787-9 with a range of around 5,200 nm. That would be a very hot seller, since it would replace not only the 767-300 but also the A300B4 models.
The plane doesn't need a shrink, and a 787-9 would be waaay to big for replacing the 767-300 or A300.
The 787-3 is even a little too big... and its limited range is entirely artificial. They removed tanks, or are limiting tanks. They could give the plane a little more range.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28623 posts, RR: 84 Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3396 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 16): The 787-3 is even a little too big... and its limited range is entirely artificial. They removed tanks, or are limiting tanks. They could give the plane a little more range.
Yes, I have come to believe that shrinking the frame is likely not the best answer.
I would think it would be easier to de-rate the MTOW of the 787-8 and swap the raked wingtips for the vertical winglets of the 787-3 to keep it within the desired gate spacing. That would likely be much cheaper then trying to beef the structure of the 787-3, which is only some 10t lighter then the 787-8's.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28623 posts, RR: 84 Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3261 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 18): That basically IS what a 787-3 is. A 787-8 with tanks removed and some simplification in structures...
Well the biggest problem with the 787-8 as a 767 family replacement is her wingspan is too wide. So if you put 787-3 wingtips on instead, you fix that problem. And if field performance is affected by that, then you paper de-rate her MTOW to a level that it isn't. You use the same engines as the 787-8 and just enjoy the lower operating costs thanks to not running them so hard.
PC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2339 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3095 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12): Keesje, there is a reason Airbus or Boeing don't take you up on your suggestions........ No airline wants them.
Well, only two airlines bought the 764 and Boeing still made 30+ units of them. If two or three airlines wanted the 785 for about 60+ units, you don't think Boeing wouldn't consider it? I think they would. Personally, I think the 785 is a great idea. Bump the range up to 762/3 capability and you could have a block buster.
In theory of course............
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28623 posts, RR: 84 Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2974 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 22): The A330 is a size class larger than the 767, and the 787-3's wingspan is much larger than a 767s.
But it still fits in a Group IV / Group E gate as do the 752, 753, 762, 763 and 764. So any Gate Type B (as defined in FAA AC 150/5360-13) can handle a 787-3 or a 787-8 with a 787-3's winglets whereas a 787-8 requires a Gate Type C.
25 Sh0rtybr0wn: Thats what I was thinking. Can a 787-8 or even a -9 fit into the same gate as an A330-300 ?
26 Jbernie: Problem 1: Boeing has to get the 787 flying and certified etc etc Problem 2: They have to start building the 800 odd orders they already have Problem
27 Gigneil: Yes. An A330-300 requires the same gate as a 777 or an A340. NS
28 FlagshipAZ: Regarding AA's fleet of A300s...does anyone here think that the 787-3 is the ideal replacement? American heavily uses its A300s on the US east coast-C
29 DocLightning: Remember the 747-400D? It's relatively cheap to produce a variant aircraft like that for a specific niche market if it doesn't involve too many modifi
30 Gigneil: MAH might disagree with me... but I don't. I don't think that its max payload/range is right, and I think it takes up too much space on the ramp. It
31 Breaker1011: Dont flame me please but I'll bet one of you have the answer - why didn't Boeing start out with the series 200 for the 787 program? Does a 200 exist?
32 MAH4546: Perfect A300 replacement for AA to use on high-density routes from Miami to JFK, Managua, Orlando, Port Au Prince, etc. I could see AA ordering them a
33 XT6Wagon: I am assuming that in the future Boeing will offer a 787-8 with the 787-3 wingtips and lower MTOW while in that configuration. Then allow it to be con
34 RJ111: The 787-3 seems to be a bit unnecessary. It's certainly the least optimised of the 787 selection, and the flexibilty and residual value the other 787s
35 Stitch: Yup. Unless you have gate-spacing constraints, you're better off with a 787-8. With so many international airports not having that problem, this is w
36 Rheinwaldner: That role (sub A350 range + A359 capacity) will be the field of the 787-10. Other than for availability the A330-400 would not look good against the
37 BrianDromey: Rotten idea, here's why. All the US carriers are moving away from widebodies on domestic flights. DL'S 763s could reach Ireland/UK and thats about it
38 Tdscanuck: Other way around...Boeing will not be certifying in Europe because no European carrier ordered it. The second one does, they'll certify with EASA. Un
39 Columba: AFAIK LH´s domestic terminal in FRA can not be used by A330s, A300-600 would be the largest same for TXL there is only one gate that can accommodate
40 Moo: It could be argued that it is still a -x00 suffix because Boeing will still add customer codes to the end, resulting in the same suffix as any other
41 WINGS: One has to wonder why AA has never considered the A330-300 as an A306 replacement. Even though the A333 is significantly larger, it has excellent econ
42 Rheinbote: In that sense, would it have done it's job even if it is never built?
43 Tdscanuck: Yep. Hence I tend to believe the rumors that they might cancel the 787-3. Tom.
44 RJ111: And considering the 788 + 789 has ~800 orders before EIS, and that it is highly unlikely that JL and NH would move away from Boeing. I think you'll a
45 KC135TopBoom: I doubt Boeing would want to look at a 5th model of the B-787 right now. Since the A-350 isn't a final design, yes. I look to see AA and DL to order
46 Astuteman: But you think an A330-400, which isn't even an initial design, never mind final, will "kill" the A350? ----- and still not be as good as the 787..
47 FlyingAY: Considering this thread I would say they're not even close to ordering such amounts in the nearby future: Flightblogger: Boeing Considers Suspending
48 Keesje: KC135TopBoom, maybe it wasn't me but you that got the wrong impression.
49 KC135TopBoom: No matter what Airbus can do to a future A-330 version, it cannot compete with the B-787 in operating economy. If Airbus were to build an A-330-400,
50 Keesje: It would be a A340-500 fuselage on a strenghtened A330 wing. The wingpylon would be the biggest job but could be based on the A350 wing pylon. No hug
51 Zeke: Can you think of a reason why airlines are still buying A330s ? What is a price of the 787 ? A330 ? What discounts are GE giving on the GEnx ?
52 Rheinwaldner: Hi Zeke Thanks for this picture! Is this from an Airbus sales campaign? It could explain why the A330 plays the 787-competitor-role so well! Regards
53 Astuteman: Ah. Get it now. My apologies Regards
54 Keesje: I must be from an Airbus sales presentation. The seat count / costs per seat game is played again. IMO it is reasonable to assume that on routes the
55 Art: Out of interest, have Airbus reached 8 a month yet? Correct me if I am wrong but I thought I saw some figures recently that showed fewer A330's were
56 A350: If the 787-10 ships with the same MTOW as the 787-9, yes. If it gets higher MTOW however, it leaves more space below it. And in any case, getting com
57 Rheinwaldner: I think that is an important point. We discuss here easily one version this day and an enhanced narrow-body the other day. But the resources at Boein