Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-3 As A 767 Replacement  
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4861 times:

There hasn't been a lot of information lately about the 787-3 program and what i want to know is how good of a replacement is the 787-3 for a 767-300.

Take airlines like DL UA AA CO who all have 767s, UA and DL seem to use a lot of their 767s on domestic flights. So lets say DL is using 767-300 on SAN-ATL. Could the 787-3 replace that 767 in a economically profitable way?

And if the 787-3 can not operate out of SAN then what about LAX-ATL

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4848 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As a replacement for 767-300s used on Japanese domestic routes, it is fine.

As a replacement for 767-300s used anywhere else in the world, not so much.

I imagine the plane as projected will not happen unless NH and JL demand it of Boeing. And that they both have agreed to let Boeing delay it indefinitely while taking additional 767-300s makes me believe they aren't exactly holding a katana to Boeing's neck.

Sheer speculation, but I would expect to see something more like a "787-8D" offering the up-turned winglets of the 787-3. OEW would remain the same as for the 787-8 (which is only 10t more then the 787-3, so no loss there) and MTOW would be "paper de-rated" as desired to keep landing costs down for missions where you don't need all ~225t (which would also allow the use of the GEnx1B-53 powerplants).


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4820 times:

Well the 787-3 has mainly been designed for Japanese and Asian customers. Its shorter wingspan allows it to operate out of smaller gates and its strengthened structure allows for a high number of cycles.

Keep in mind that its range is limited to only 2,500 to 3,050 nm which while sufficient for transcontinental flights in the United States, it doesn't allow flexibility to be used on longer haul flights when needed. This is why it would not garner much interest from U.S. carriers who regularly reconfigure their widebody aircraft depending on the need.

It is very much a niche aircraft designed for a specific type of market. ANA and JAL have both placed orders for the aircraft. It will regularly be used on domestic flights in Japan such as Tokyo to Sapporo.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4783 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Sheer speculation, but I would expect to see something more like a "787-8D" offering the up-turned winglets of the 787-3. OEW would remain the same as for the 787-8 (which is only 10t more then the 787-3, so no loss there) and MTOW would be "paper de-rated" as desired to keep landing costs down for missions where you don't need all ~225t (which would also allow the use of the GEnx1B-53 powerplants).

I'd agree with that. Your '-8D' sounds good to me. Considering that the CFRP airframe should already solve the high cycle problem.


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4720 times:

I can not see a good reason for Boeing to build the B787-3.
If the -8 and -9 were not the mega sales success that they have turned out to be then the -3 would be good. However with the hugh orders that the -8 and -9 has seen I think the -3 causes to many additional problems for too few orders.
Therefore like Stich has suggested its probably better to bend up the winglet of the -8, cut its cost, and deliver to ANA and JAL.
The -3 is currently a distant memory of the past!
All effort is needed to achieve
1st flight
RR Cert
EIS
GE Cert
MWE improvement
MTOW increase
Production ramp up and non-conformance elimination
-9 1st flight
-9 cert
-9 EIS
How to combat the 350-9 & 10 (B787-10 (with or without new wing and engines) or B777?)

With all that I can not see the value in the effort of developing a new aircraft for 43 niche orders. It would probably not even be worth developing a new winglet for only 43 niche orders let alone a new aircraft.
ANA and JAL have Boeing over the barrel with the -3   

Instead of the -3 investment what about a 2nd production line or even a 2nd production line and a KC-787-8. With the CFRP airframe the USAF could get 40 years low maintaince service out of a KC-787-8.

[Edited 2008-12-05 13:31:53]

User currently offlineSmeg From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4605 times:



Quoting HawkerCamm (Reply 4):

With all that I can not see the value in the effort of developing a new aircraft for 43 niche orders. It would probably not even be worth developing a new winglet for only 43 niche orders let alone a new aircraft.
ANA and JAL have Boeing over the barrel with the -3

But surely it would take no more resources to develop the -3 from the existing 787 programme, than it has for Boeing to push on with the passenger version of the 748 (and that has even fewer orders!)


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4464 times:



Quoting Smeg (Reply 5):
But surely it would take no more resources to develop the -3 from the existing 787 programme, than it has for Boeing to push on with the passenger version of the 748 (and that has even fewer orders!)

Most of the work on the 747-8 is common to the freighter and passenger model. You can't neatly break the engineering down that way, except for the interior.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 6):
You can't neatly break the engineering down that way, except for the interior.

Well the 787-3 is just a 787-8 with a thinner fuselage, 53k thrust engines, the upturned winglets, and a significant paper de-rated MTOW. So really, there is absolutely no technical reason not to build it. And since it has orders, there is no financial reason to not build it, especially since there are so few additional costs related to doing so.

So that leaves a few options I can think of:

  • NH and JL have had a change of heart on the model (they don't want it);

  • They have decided that a more capable "787-8D" would be a better choice for them;

  • They still want the 787-3, but hope that Boeing can make it a great deal more then 10t lighter so it's economics on such short-haul missions is better and they will wait until Boeing has completed design improvements to the -8 and -9 that can be then added to the -3.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4358 times:



Quoting BA (Reply 2):

Keep in mind that its range is limited to only 2,500 to 3,050 nm which while sufficient for transcontinental flights in the United States,

And even then, it might not be able to do JFK-LAX if it's hot in JFK and the headwinds are strong. I think it would be a lot of egg in a carrier's face to have to stop for fuel on such a flight.


User currently offlineDalavia From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 549 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

I am surprised that the 787-3 seems not to have been considered by QF for its high density (but short) CityFlyer routes (SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE, etc).

At present, QF operates 763s on a half hourly basis all day on a route that is just 381 nm (SYD-MEL). This seems ideal for the 787-3 given that QF is the world's largest customer for 787s in general.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4151 times:



Quoting BA (Reply 2):
it doesn't allow flexibility to be used on longer haul flights when needed. This is why it would not garner much interest from U.S. carriers who regularly reconfigure their widebody aircraft depending on the need.

But, looking at Delta for example, they don't use their domestic 767-300 for SAN-ATL then use that same aircraft for ATL-LGW. They use the 767-300ER. So they could use the 787-3 on an international route under 3,000NM but they don't really use the 767-300 (Non ER) on that many international routes anyways.

Quoting Smeg (Reply 5):
But surely it would take no more resources to develop the -3 from the existing 787 programme, than it has for Boeing to push on with the passenger version of the 748 (and that has even fewer orders!)

That's what I was thinking

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
And even then, it might not be able to do JFK-LAX if it's hot in JFK and the headwinds are strong. I think it would be a lot of egg in a carrier's face to have to stop for fuel on such a flight.

What would it take to increase the range of the 787-3 to allow it to make LAX-JFK in strong headwinds, because if an A320 can go SFO-JFK then I can't imagine why they couldn't make a 787-3 do it.


I guess the biggest thing I need to figure out is what the real difference is between the 787-3 and 787-8. Since I'm not exactly sure what MTOW is and means for range etc i will need to do some research


User currently offlineWAC From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4056 times:

What about Japan-Korea/China, Korea-China/Japan, China-Korea/Japan
I would think 787-3 would be very useful for this high density routes.......


User currently offlineFlyABR From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3852 times:

can a 788 fit into a 763 gate...ie wingspan issues??

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3800 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dalavia (Reply 9):
I am surprised that the 787-3 seems not to have been considered by QF for its high density (but short) CityFlyer routes (SYD-MEL, SYD-BNE, etc).

Are the CityFlyer planes one-class or two? The 787-3 has about the same capacity and empty weight as an A330-200 so it might just not be economical enough in it's current form. If Boeing can knock another 10t off the 787-3's weight, it would be close to a 767-300ER and at that point might make an excellent people-mover for QF.



Quoting FlyABR (Reply 12):
can a 788 fit into a 763 gate...ie wingspan issues??

The 787-8 is ICAO Cat E / FAA Cat V while the 787-3 and 767 are ICAO Cat D and FAA Cat IV.

So if you are operating your 767s out of Cat D/IV gates, you will not be able to put a 787-8 in there, but you could a 787-3 (or a 787-8 with the -3's upturned winglets).


User currently offlineVhqpa From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3757 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):

Are the CityFlyer planes one-class or two? The 787-3 has about the same capacity and empty weight as an A330-200 so it might just not be economical enough in it's current form. If Boeing can knock another 10t off the 787-3's weight, it would be close to a 767-300ER and at that point might make an excellent people-mover for QF.

All QF cityflyer flights (which is more then just SYD-BNE/MEL) are 2 class except for Dash 8 operated SYD-CBR shuttles.

Another thing is that the 787-3 would ideally have to be capable of a 60 minute turn around. This was the main reason the A330's were pulled off high density 90 minute sectors in the first place as they relied on high cycle operations but needed a whole 90 minutes to turn whereas the 763 can be done in about 60 minutes. As a result the A330's were consigned to longer Domestic sectors and International flights.



Vhq



"There you go ladies and gentleman we're through Mach 1 the speed of sound no bumps no bangs... CONCORDE"
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3678 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If it was an A330-300 that needed 90 minutes to turn, that might favor the 787-3. If it was an A330-200, then turn times should be about the same and therefore too long.

User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1406 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

I could see US airlines buying a 787-5 with the range of a 757 (preferably 125% of a 757) and still fitting at more gates.

Would be good for transcons, Hawaii service, and East Coast to Europe.

But seems like all those are going narrow body, so will a 737-900ER be more efficient than a 787-8 on LAX-NYC?

In the end I think a 787-5 would end be as popular as the folding wing option on the 777.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ADent (Reply 16):
I could see US airlines buying a 787-5 with the range of a 757 (preferably 125% of a 757) and still fitting at more gates.

The 757-300 hauled about 2/3rds the payload as the 787-3 did almost 1,000nm farther with a TOW 85t less and the US airlines didn't think much of it, so I admit to being skeptical they would like the 787-3 since if you dropped it's payload to the 31t of the 757-300, you could probably claw much of that range back, which would still barely get you across the continental United States horizontally and would still preclude many (if not most) "diagonal routes" like SEA-MIA or BOS-LAX.


User currently offlineJimbobjoe From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3177 times:



Quoting HawkerCamm (Reply 4):
I can not see a good reason for Boeing to build the B787-3.

As we all know, the 787 program has a lot of stakeholders involved--companies with contracts for building 787 parts who are heavily involved in the R+D and development costs of the aircraft.

I believe the country with the biggest stake in the 787 program, after the US, is Japan.

So I could see a situation in which there was considerable pressure on ANA/JAL to order the 787, and their response was "we'll order a crapton of them if you make them like this."

There are multiple ways of how it could have worked, but either way, I suspect the 787-3 is a creature of the unique shared development system that was setup for the 787.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3093 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Despite the expansion of the [i[shinkansen[/i] network, NH and JL still fly a great number of people every day around the Home Islands on 777-300s, 777-200s and 767-300s.

I am not familiar with Japanese domestic airports, but I am going to hazard a guess that many of those gates can't accommodate a 777's wingspan. If they could, JL and NH would have bought more 777-300s and 777-200s to replace their 767-300s.

Therefore, NH and JL need a plane that carries more people then a 767-300, but still fits in the gate. They only had one option until 2003 - the 767-400ER. Why they didn't take it, I really don't know. Maybe they felt that the extra 35 people it carried were not worth the 15t of extra empty weight the 764ER frame had.

The 787-3 would have likely been close to the 767-400ER in empty weight, but instead of carrying 304 passengers, it carried 330. So it would carry roughly 60 more people then the 767-300ER and 40 less then the 777-200, while still fitting in a 767-sized gate. As such, it offered them some 20% greater capacity per flight.

Which is why I remain convinced both airlines want it, but they are likely waiting to see if Boeing can make it even lighter. They may even push for a 787-9 variant with the upturned wings so they could get upwards of 375 people and use it as a 777-200 replacement.


User currently offlineFrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1744 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3078 times:

I suspect sometime in the mid/end next decade after Boeing and Airbus get things under good control that airlines will see if they need (and that it would make more sense than abusing the main models) a derated 787 or 350. If one company makes one, both likely will. It will be a LONG time before we know.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineDitzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 724 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2893 times:



Quoting Vhqpa (Reply 14):
whereas the 763 can be done in about 60 minutes.

Minimum turn time for a QF 763 at domestic ports is 45 mins. Recently turn times in SYD and MEL were increased to help with OTP due to aircraft shortage and serviceability issues. However the 763s are relatively quick to turn for a widebody on short, day time East Coast flying.


User currently onlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8041 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

I still think Boeing is looking at building a "787-5" (essentially a 787-8 but with smaller fuel tanks) so you can fly at most 5,500 nautical miles in still-air range. That is more than enough for USA transcon, USA West Coast to Hawaii, USA East Coast to Europe and eastern USA to most of South America. The 787-5 would certainly be very attractive as a replacement for the aging AA fleet of A300B4-600R planes.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2774 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 787-3 has the same fuel volume as the 787-8. The only difference is you can't fill them nearly as much due to the MTOW limit.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

The B-787-3 is a direct A-300-600R replacement, it will also work well as a B-767-200/-300 non-ER replacement. I would suspect AA and DL would order the B-787-3 as a replacement for the AA A-300-605Rs and the DL B-767-332s. It would fit very well in the AA and DL routes served by those airplanes now. Of course both JL and NH can use the B-787-3 on the short range high density domestic Japanese routes. I would also suspect that LH could use the B-787-3 for a European A-300-B4/-600R replacement.

The B-787-3 would not be able to replace any B-767-ERs as it does not have the range.


25 BlueSky1976 : 787-8 operation will be profitable on segments as short as 2000nm. With that in mind, there is absolutely no chance for US 787-3 order. The -3 would
26 Carpethead : Gate space isn't much of an issue as long it fits within the box for a 777 or 747-classic. Most widebody gates are capable of accepting upwards of a
27 Boeing74741R : I think Monarch would be a good home for the 787-3 to replace their A300s on the high-density European charter routes they use them on, although they
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...
787 As A DC-10 Replacement For Worlds Airways posted Fri Jun 23 2006 20:59:40 by 747400sp
787 Seen As Ideal Replacement For MAS A330s posted Sun Nov 13 2005 01:00:29 by Squirrel83
Delta 767 Replacement Question posted Sun Feb 25 2007 16:34:36 by ATLflyer
787 Vs 767 And 757 posted Sat Nov 4 2006 23:20:19 by EBJ1248650
Economics Of The 787-8 Vs 767-300ER posted Wed Jun 14 2006 02:49:25 by Baron95
Emirates May Opt For 787 As A350 Hits A Snag posted Sat May 13 2006 14:16:07 by BoomBoom
Scaled Down Sonic Cruiser As A 737 Replacement? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 00:53:46 by OyKIE
Market Of The Decade: U.S Carriers 767 Replacement posted Sat Dec 17 2005 11:45:33 by Flying Belgian
Boeing Strives For Commonality. 787, 777, 767-400 posted Wed Sep 7 2005 13:59:43 by Juventus
Kenya Airways 767 Replacement Dcn Due posted Fri Jun 17 2005 04:23:20 by Flying-Tiger