Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JAL Drops 787-3 Order 787-8  
User currently offlineSsublyme From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 515 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8646 times:

Not sure I saw this coming. Would it be justifiable for Boeing to continue on with only one customer on board? ANA has also converted a couple to 788. WIll it suffice as a 757 replacement?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-favour-of-longer-range-787-8.html

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30567 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8615 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yes we discussed this last week when it first hit Boeing's order sheet.

I still think my "787-8D" makes more sense as it offers the 52m span of the 787-3, but the flexibility to choose a higher MTOW for longer range if desired. The 787-3's OEW is so close to that of the 787-8's that flying those few extra metric tons of structure is more then offset by the few scores of extra tons in TOW.

Boeing would need to do little in the way of certification other than prove the upturned winglets work and could offer the model effectively now.

As for UA replacing domestic 757-200s with 787-3s, I find that surprising, unless they plan to really scale back frequencies. UA does run some two and three-class 767s and 777s around some of their hubs (SFO/DEN/IAD/ORD) and gateways (SEA) during the high traffic seasons (often as tags on international flights), but this would essentially require UA to either double their traffic on each 757-200 flight or halve the number of frequencies (consolidating two 757 flights onto one 783).


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8574 times:



Quote:
And the Chicago Tribune has reported that United Airlines is considering replacing its 757, 767 and 777 fleets with 787s - including -3s to replace 96 757-200s used on routes of around 4,600km (2,500nm).

United is considering 787-3s? Interesting.


User currently offlineMSYtristar From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 6521 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8556 times:



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 2):
United is considering 787-3s? Interesting.

I doubt -3's. But either -8, -9, or both, would be a great fit for the airline. Hopefully this will pan out.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8282 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8455 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 787 is an international airplane. Using it in Japan's domestic market would be a miss-use. The shortest flights for the 787 will be JFK to LAX/SFO. I expect most to be used to replace 767's on the Atlantic and heavily used to Asia and the Middle East. EZE, GRU, SCL, GIG, CCS and BOG will see many 787's too. The 787 is the 767 for the Pacific, the end of the Jumbo having to change at NRT.

User currently offlineDalavia From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 543 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8239 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 4):
The 787 is an international airplane. Using it in Japan's domestic market would be a miss-use. The shortest flights for the 787 will be JFK to LAX/SFO.

Not for QF in Australia, I think, where they will replace 767s SYD-MEL.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7835 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I still think my "787-8D" makes more sense as it offers the 52m span of the 787-3

A 52m-span -3 wing with large winglets incurs a decrease in L/D of 5-6% over the baseline -8 wing.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7765 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 4):
The 787 is an international airplane. Using it in Japan's domestic market would be a miss-use.

There are a lot of international aircraft being "misused" in the Japanese market then, apparently.

[quote=Jfk777,reply=4]The 787 is the 767 for the Pacific, the end of the Jumbo having to change at NRT.

Japanese carriers seem to know what works for them - the litany of 767s and 777s operating very short sectors supports my claim.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7718 times:



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 6):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I still think my "787-8D" makes more sense as it offers the 52m span of the 787-3

A 52m-span -3 wing with large winglets incurs a decrease in L/D of 5-6% over the baseline -8 wing.


Even with a decrease in L/D of 5-6%, the 787-D should be able to lift its lower MTOW( as compared to the 788).


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13516 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7580 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 4):
The 787 is an international airplane. Using it in Japan's domestic market would be a miss-use.

Funny, there are an awful lot of widebody, long-haul aircraft being "misused" quite profitably in Japan domestic service today.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7405 times:



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 8):
Even with a decrease in L/D of 5-6%, the 787-D should be able to lift its lower MTOW( as compared to the 788).

The Lift is the same, it's the Drag that is getting worse. Add the weight penalty incurred by having a long-range airplane pedigree and you will have a hard time beating a used 767 in profitability on sectors well below 500NM.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30567 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7372 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 6):
A 52m-span -3 wing with large winglets incurs a decrease in L/D of 5-6% over the baseline -8 wing.



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 10):
The Lift is the same, it's the Drag that is getting worse. Add the weight penalty incurred by having a long-range airplane pedigree and you will have a hard time beating a used 767 in profitability on sectors well below 500NM.

I imagine NH and JL wanted it more for capacity than performance over their domestic 767-300 fleet.

I could see other short-haul/medium-haul 767-300ER operators considering the same. If QF prefers to stay with the 767 for their City Flyer services, Boeing can certainly accommodate them with new builds.  Wink


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7282 times:

I think what the airlines REALLY want is essentially a lower-weight 787-8 with around 5,500 nautical mile still air range, enough to fly trans-Atlantic routes but still light enough to be profitable on routes in the 2500-3000 nm range.

I would not be surprised if Boeing offers a 787-5 model for this very reason.  Smile


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7006 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 4):
The 787 is an international airplane. Using it in Japan's domestic market would be a miss-use. The shortest flights for the 787 will be JFK to LAX/SFO. I expect most to be used to replace 767's on the Atlantic and heavily used to Asia and the Middle East. EZE, GRU, SCL, GIG, CCS and BOG will see many 787's too. The 787 is the 767 for the Pacific, the end of the Jumbo having to change at NRT.

Sorry, but you've completely lost me with all that. What exactly is "an international airplane"? Since time began airlines have used them for whatever they saw fit to match any given route at any given time......in which case if I were you I wouldn't hold my breath on them rushing to seek your advice on what they should use. As it hasn't even flown, much less in service, I really don't see where you get the knowledge that you know what it's shortest route will ever be!! BTW, JFK-LAX/SFO is a domestic route, so I guess that contradicts your 'logic' somewhat, doesn't it?


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6737 times:



Quoting RayChuang (Reply 12):
I think what the airlines REALLY want is essentially a lower-weight 787-8 with around 5,500 nautical mile still air range, enough to fly trans-Atlantic routes but still light enough to be profitable on routes in the 2500-3000 nm range.

Wait, if that's what the customers really want, wouldn't the top level design requirement of the 787 and the 350 be fundamentally wrong then in demanding 8000NM range?

Is there a place for another product in the market? I mean, if there were the 787/A350 and a companion optmized for 2500-5500NM, what would the market split look like in numbers sold?

Caveat: The 787 and the 350 are designed for 6500NM with a capability to go 8000NM. There are no spot designs anymore...


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8282 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6664 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7):
the litany of 767s and 777s operating very short sectors supports my claim.



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 9):
Funny, there are an awful lot of widebody, long-haul aircraft being "misused" quite profitably in Japan domestic service today.

For years ANA and JAL have used 777, especially 777-300, on domestic routes with close to 500 seats. They too use 777-300ER with 4 classes to Europe and the USA.



AIRNZ,

Qantas will use many 787 on domestic routes, its just the nature of Australia.

I said two things about a 787, JFK to LAX/SFO and a few airports in South America to suport my "international airplane" that you so peotically said, I wouldn't Hold my breath".

Well the facts are these: AA and UA offer 3 class "international level" service from JFK to LAX & SFO because the market is there for such a service and the Screen Actors Guild, an American Union in Hollywwod of television actors, get premium travel benefits as part of their deal with studios.

In Latin America several leading airlines have ordered the 787, Lan Chile and Avianca. LAN has airlines in Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Argentina so its 787 will fly to the USA and Europe from several capitol cities as LAN's 767 & A340's do today including your native Auckland since LAN does fly from Santiago to Auckland and SYD. LAN has 25 787's on order.

Avianca has an order for 10 787-8's and will fly then all over South America, Europe and the USA.

AA has up to 100 787-9's on order and will use them on their current 767 & 777 routes to deep south america.

I hope this clarifies it from some one who you said," I wouldn't hold my berathe for them to seek my advice".

Your own ANZ will fly to Chile soon with a 787, so I've heard,


User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2361 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6297 times:



Quoting RayChuang (Reply 12):
I think what the airlines REALLY want is essentially a lower-weight 787-8 with around 5,500 nautical mile still air range, enough to fly trans-Atlantic routes but still light enough to be profitable on routes in the 2500-3000 nm range.

I would not be surprised if Boeing offers a 787-5 model for this very reason. Smile

This plane is the same as the 787-8. If they want that they can lower registered MTOW and be done with it. Boeing will not be building any 787-4/5/6/7. If the 8 flies out with a normal passenger load to 8000nm, it will fly 5000nm with max payload or near to it.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6236 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 15):
AA has up to 100 787-9's on order and will use them on their current 767 & 777 routes to deep south america.

AA has not ordered the 787. They have only signed a LoI, it's still not official.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineDivemaster08 From Cayman Islands, joined Jul 2008, 330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5995 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 17):

AA has not ordered the 787. They have only signed a LoI, it's still not official.

This is true but i would be very...... no make that it aint gonna change!

They will take these 787s....... they are just having to get all their contracts with the workers all sorted out first.....

As soon as they have all agreed on something (which may not happen in the near future) but AA and Boeing are always talking...... They will get aircraft sooner than we all would think after this deal becomes real!



My dream, is to fly, over the rainbow, so high!
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5915 times:



Quoting Divemaster08 (Reply 18):
This is true but i would be very...... no make that it aint gonna change!

They will take these 787s....... they are just having to get all their contracts with the workers all sorted out first.....

Yes of course, I did not mean that AA would order anything else. I was just pointing out that the order is not final.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8282 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4839 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Kappel (Reply 17):
AA has not ordered the 787. They have only signed a LoI, it's still not official.

AA Ordered 42 787-9's and optioned the rest for 100.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4705 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 15):
I hope this clarifies it from some one who you said," I wouldn't hold my berathe for them to seek my advice".

Okay, but I feel you have somewhat misunderstood my meaning in my comments, and I was not attempting to be funny in the slightest. In losing me I asked you to clarify for me what is an "international" airplane. In reply you spell out airlines ordering the 787 which is known to all. By definition by any parameter I've ever seen any airplane can fly either domestic or international routes.......and do on a daily basis......hence I don't see at all what you mean by your category.
Is there an airplane designed soley for domestic routes of a country? No, there is not, nor do I see any relevance in what AA or UA fly JFK-LAX/SFO........neither have ordered the 787 anyhow and you clearly said an 'international airplane'.
I am merely trying to understand what you mean by your definition.

BTW, Auckland is not my native city nor, unfortunately, am I even a New Zealander so Air New Zealand is not my national airline either. I just happen to think they are the best airline in the world. No major issue, and I don't mind at all, but I just wanted to mention that you were making a clearly incorrect assumption.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4606 times:



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 16):
This plane is the same as the 787-8. If they want that they can lower registered MTOW and be done with it. Boeing will not be building any 787-4/5/6/7. If the 8 flies out with a normal passenger load to 8000nm, it will fly 5000nm with max payload or near to it.

But if Boeing (once it has the time) can engineer a meaningful weight reduction program on the 788, a 785 derivative becomes more appealing than a downgraded 788.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30567 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4448 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 22):
But if Boeing (once it has the time) can engineer a meaningful weight reduction program on the 788, a 785 derivative becomes more appealing than a downgraded 788.

The 787-3 was supposed to be 10t lighter than the 787-8 with a TOW 60t lighter. I really haven't been able to identify what, exactly, has been done to make it lighter, however. It offers the same fuel tank capacity as the 787-8, it just can't fill the tanks because of the TOW limit which keeps the range down.

Also, how many airports in the world have widebody gates scaled to the maximum 52m of ICAO Code D? I have read that Japanese domestic airports are, which is why the 787-3's span is 52m. But any airport built in the past decade or two should be scaled for ICAO E and able to take a plane with a span of up to 64m.

If only Japan needs 52m, than it's easy enough for Boeing to slap them on a 787-8. For everywhere - and everyone - else, just fly the 64m 787-8 and benefit from the better L/D and TOW.

And then Boeing need only just keep chipping away at the OEW of the 787-8, benefiting all operators on all missions. No need for a "-5" - just fill your -8 with only enough fuel to fly 3000m at full payload.


User currently offlineTISTPAA727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 324 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4276 times:

With JAL now converting its 783 to 788 and ANA converting a couple of them, one has to assume (and I know what that implies), Boeing is working hard to get ANA to convert its order to 788/789.

The interest in the 783 just isn't there. The 783 was a product of ANA and JL's need for a plane to meet its domestic requirements. That seems to be evolving (notice, not changing). Airlines in the US and Europe I could see being really interested in a 787-5, as Stitch proposes. The capacity and range would satisfy a lot of gaps in the market. I just see the writing on the wall for the 783.

Just my  twocents 



Don't sweat the little things.
25 Viscount724 : The 787-3 wingspan is 27 ft. less than the 787-8. That must reduce weight significantly.
26 Kappel : Nope, not a firm order yet. Is this easy? IIRC the 783 wing is the same as the 788 except for the winglets right? In that case there's no big issue w
27 Post contains links Viscount724 : "Plans to acquire" and "intends to acquire" isn't quite the same thing as a firm order. http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=748 Boeing orders
28 Gigneil : We'll see. For the moment, the 787-8's range is about equal to an A330-200's. Yes yes I'm sure it will improve. NS
29 DavidByrne : I know this suggestion gets repeated often on A-net, but I'm not aware of an source that confirms that the airline is planning to use 787s on domesti
30 Post contains links Dalavia : In a press release on the Qantas website, the-then Qantas Board Chair (Margaret Jackson) is quoted as saying "They (the 787s) will cater for internat
31 DavidByrne : But why would they order a brand-new ULH aircraft to operate such sectors? That's the bit that doesn't make sense . . . ? Surely they're far from opt
32 Jfk777 : AIRNZ, AA has ordered 42 787-9's. AND in the UK BA, Virgin and First Choice, a charter airline, have ordered 787's. BA will probably use their 787 fr
33 EBJ1248650 : Keep in mind that Boeing has built special derivatives of its airplanes for Japan's use on its domestic routes, from island to island. That's include
34 Jfk777 : The 787-3 with shorter wing is the short haul or Japanesse 787, both JAL & ANA have switched those planes to 787-8's. Boeing may build it but first i
35 Stitch : NH still has 23 787-3s on order. That they only converted 2 of their original 25 leads me to believe they want the plane, period, so Boeing will obli
36 Tdscanuck : It's probably still cheaper than the alternative. The 767 was originally designed for short/medium-range high-density domestic flying and eventually
37 DavidByrne : Hmmmm. Some of the components of a ULH aircraft (eg undercarriage) will be designed for the number of cycles expected with ULH operations, presumably
38 XT6Wagon : If you do a 788D right, you can swap between the two roles with paperwork and a wingtip change. So they start the 788 out on long haul flights. When
39 Viscount724 : There is not yet a firm AA order, only an "intention to order". See the AA press release in Reply 27.
40 DavidByrne : Sorry, word missing from the above that completely changes the sense. To correct it: "And I'm guessing as well that an aircraft that's designed to cr
41 Prebennorholm : The shorter wing span reduces the lift moment arm dramatically. Therefore especially the central part of the wing can be made much lighter. The much
42 Aaron747 : The only special derivatives developed for the Japanese market were on the 747SR, 747-100SUD, and 747-400D. No other model number has expressly been
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...
JAL RFP To Order 10 To 15 CRJ Or E-JETS posted Fri Nov 17 2006 13:12:45 by PanAm_DC10
JAL Likely To Order The 747-8? posted Sat Sep 2 2006 15:36:53 by American 767
JAL Drops Kagoshima-HK, JAA Drops TPE-OKA posted Thu Jan 17 2002 06:09:16 by Jiml1126
787 Compensation: ANA, JAL Seek 767 Leases posted Wed May 14 2008 07:31:59 by Aviationbuff
787: JAL Switching To A350? posted Thu Feb 21 2008 21:17:48 by RedFlyer
JAL 787 Livery Competition posted Fri Jul 6 2007 17:11:52 by Jimyvr
JAL Moving A 787 Wing Out Of SFO posted Mon Apr 2 2007 05:58:58 by Phishphan70
First Flight For 787 Targeted For June 24th posted Thu Jun 11 2009 02:35:08 by Ecb747
787 First Flight Today 6-10-09? posted Wed Jun 10 2009 15:04:24 by Sunking737
Guy Norris...787 Intermediate Gauntlet Done posted Sun Jun 7 2009 18:02:18 by Nomadd22