Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mexicana To Swap 2 332 For 4 763 And Leans Tw 787?  
User currently offlineFyano773 From Mexico, joined Mar 2004, 784 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 17272 times:

RUMOR - MX is in advanced discussion to transfer 2 332 to Air Transat (TS is getting rid of older 310). The void would be filled with 4 763 from other airlines at the same lease cost. Supposedly those 763 are recent builds, thus the operating economics would be similar.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas Posch - VAP
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jonathan Parra (Mexico Air Spotters)



Seems the 767 fits better in MX's current long-haul network because they can rotate the type indistinctively between Europe and Southamerica, improving load factors with the right amount of seats and commonality with the rest of the wb fleet. Additionally, MEX-LGW could be turned from 4x to 7x weekly, etc.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Gill
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © SkyMember



OTOH, few days ago, MX's top executives visited Everett; the chairman and the CEO and other high level officials toured the Dreamliner production facilities.

Overall, if confirmed, this paves the way for a new 787-8 order and because the 350 in general is larger, the Dash 8 is the perfect fit between 332 and 763...

Comments?

Fyano

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinenetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 16996 times:

Quoting Fyano773 (Thread starter):
MX is in advanced discussion to transfer 2 332 to Air Transat (TS is getting rid of older 310). The void would be filled with 4 763 from other airlines at the same lease cost. Supposedly those 763 are recent builds, thus the operating economics would be similar.

I think that would be fine as long as they are indeed 767-300s.... no more 767-200s, PLEASE.... Mexicana never commited to the A330 anyway, they leased them to see how they'd work out.

Quoting Fyano773 (Thread starter):
Seems the 767 fits better in MX's current long-haul network because they can rotate the type indistinctively between Europe and Southamerica, improving load factors with the right amount of seats and commonality with the rest of the wb fleet. Additionally, MEX-LGW could be turned from 4x to 7x weekly, etc.

"767 a better fit"??? I see your point about rotating the type and "commonality" with the rest of their wide-body fleet.... The problem is they will loose commonality with the rest of the fleet.

Quoting Fyano773 (Thread starter):
Overall, if confirmed, this paves the way for a new 787-8 order and because the 350 in general is larger, the Dash 8 is the perfect fit between 332 and 763...

Don't know what to think about this, I was under the impression MX would become an ALL Airbus airline.... but the 787-8 in Mexicana livery, I could get used to that....


User currently offlineaa1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3437 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16319 times:

Quoting Fyano773 (Thread starter):
MX is in advanced discussion to transfer 2 332 to Air Transat (TS is getting rid of older 310). The void would be filled with 4 763 from other airlines at the same lease cost. Supposedly those 763 are recent builds, thus the operating economics would be similar.

That would be AWESOME! I am really pleased to see MX go from strength to strength- increasing it's WB fleet.

Quoting Fyano773 (Thread starter):
Overall, if confirmed, this paves the way for a new 787-8 order and because the 350 in general is larger, the Dash 8 is the perfect fit between 332 and 763...

I believe that for MX, the smaller long haul a/c will be the best fit. The 788 would be particularly useful in opening up new, thinner European routes- perhaps more destinations in Spain, etc. The a/c can also be used on flights to deep South America.

As an aside- how would the 787 perform from MEX to Asia. i have always thought that this was the compelling case for the 787. If it has the legs to do the flights, then it makes more sense since the a/c has less capacity than the A350- making it a better fit for these loooong thin routes.

Quoting netjetsintl (Reply 1):
"767 a better fit"??? I see your point about rotating the type and "commonality" with the rest of their wide-body fleet.... The problem is they will loose commonality with the rest of the fleet.

Are the benefits of commonality between the WB and NB Airbus models really that compelling? I am yet to be convinced. many airlines around the world who do not use both NB and WB from Airbus seem to do just fine.

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 offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7617 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 16084 times:

Quoting aa1818 (Reply 2):
I believe that for MX, the smaller long haul a/c will be the best fit. The 788 would be particularly useful in opening up new, thinner European routes- perhaps more destinations in Spain, etc. The a/c can also be used on flights to deep South America.

As an aside- how would the 787 perform from MEX to Asia. i have always thought that this was the compelling case for the 787. If it has the legs to do the flights, then it makes more sense since the a/c has less capacity than the A350- making it a better fit for these loooong thin routes.

I also think the 787 makes more sense for MX because the A350XWB is too big a jump in capacity over the 767s and A330s that MX operates at the moment, and because it would be delivered too far into the future.

Now, as to the replacement of the A332s with more 763ERs, my only issue is that MX might find itself with weight limitations during the hot months (Euro flights), wouldn't it?

AA1818, you make an interesting question about the 787 and Asia. It is my understanding that AM intends to use its 788s to NRT and PVG, and I guess it still remains to be seen whether the 788 has the legs for MEX-PVG nonstop.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting netjetsintl (Reply 1):
"767 a better fit"??? I see your point about rotating the type and "commonality" with the rest of their wide-body fleet.... The problem is they will loose commonality with the rest of the fleet.

MX does appear to have 767-200ERs and 767-300ERs in their existing fleet, so it seems to me adding additional 767s would not be an undue hardship for the company. Especially if, in terms of capacity, they would enjoy higher average load factors than the A330-200s.


User currently offlinenetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15795 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 3):
AA1818, you make an interesting question about the 787 and Asia. It is my understanding that AM intends to use its 788s to NRT and PVG, and I guess it still remains to be seen whether the 788 has the legs for MEX-PVG nonstop.

I wonder if high elevation performance had something to do with Mexicana's decision to look at the 787 in lieu of the A350??

Well if this rumor turns out to be true, I'll miss seeing the A330 in MX colors, even if was a short time

[Edited 2010-05-07 11:57:00]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting netjetsintl (Reply 5):
I wonder if high elevation performance had something to do with Mexicana's decision to look at the 787 in lieu of the A350?

But the A350 is claimed by some to have superior "hot and high" performance because of it's larger wing.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15210 times:

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 3):
It is my understanding that AM intends to use its 788s to NRT and PVG, and I guess it still remains to be seen whether the 788 has the legs for MEX-PVG nonstop.

If the MEX-PVG intent is a fact and if there are current discussions going on between the carrier and Boeing it would suggest that Boeing know the 788 is going to be close to hitting it's numbers. On a 80% winds day the ESAD is ~ 8000nm. MEX-NRT is ~7100nm but the winter winds around Japan can be very strong with the likelihood of the ESAD being quite a bit higher than that in the winter.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15202 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 7):

If the MEX-PVG intent is a fact and if there are current discussions going on between the carrier and Boeing it would suggest that Boeing know the 788 is going to be close to hitting it's numbers. On a 80% winds day the ESAD is ~ 8000nm. MEX-NRT is ~7100nm but the winter winds around Japan can be very strong with the likelihood of the ESAD being quite a bit higher than that in the winter.

If only MEX would be at sea level...
Unfortunately, it isn't, and I believe even the A345 or 772LR would have problems making that trip with an economically viable payload...



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineKingFriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1303 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14221 times:

Quoting Fyano773 (Thread starter):
Dash 8

You mean the 787-8, right? And not this...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank Robitaille

Quoting A342 (Reply 8):
If only MEX would be at sea level...

I know the 757 is much smaller, but MX did have it at one point, and perhaps this could work on long, thin routes? Not to mention it has cockpit commonality with the 767. The 757 is known for having superior hot-and-high performance.

-J.

[Edited 2010-05-07 17:51:36]


Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5148 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13954 times:

[quote=A342,reply=8]If only MEX would be at sea level...
Unfortunately, it isn't, and I believe even the A345 or 772LR would have problems making that trip with an economically viable payload...

So right... The takeoff runway length chart for that elevation and temp for the 772LR suggests a MTOW of about 280t which assuming a 50t payload is good for about 5000nm. Sounds like a one-stopper, say SFO which is on the track or if in Mexico, ACA because it is at sea level and probably a little cooler


User currently offlinePRAirbus From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2005, 1142 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13932 times:

Oh! That would be a shame!!!   A330 is nicer, more comfortable...763 is not!  

User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13529 times:

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 11):
Oh! That would be a shame!!! A330 is nicer, more comfortable...763 is not!

You do know that MX's A330's are 3-3-3 in economy as opposed to the standard 2-4-2? The 763 and its 2-3-2 configuration would be a huge step up in comfort.


User currently offline9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10313 times:

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 11):
Oh! That would be a shame!!! A330 is nicer, more comfortable...763 is not!

Totally agreed, I never like the 767s, and for one thing for sure, I will not fly with them or any airlines operating 767s.

Its a fleet downgrade if you ask me.



Airliners is the wings of my life.
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10018 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Quoting netjetsintl (Reply 5):
I wonder if high elevation performance had something to do with Mexicana's decision to look at the 787 in lieu of the A350?

But the A350 is claimed by some to have superior "hot and high" performance because of it's larger wing.

Airbus recently offered an A358 "Hot and High" version with the A359 engines specifically mentioning Mexico as a place where such might be necessary.


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9312 times:

Quoting 9V-SVC (Reply 13):
Totally agreed, I never like the 767s, and for one thing for sure, I will not fly with them or any airlines operating 767s.

Its a fleet downgrade if you ask me.

If you stay on SQ you have nothing to worry about.


User currently offlinenetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9237 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 14):
Airbus recently offered an A358 "Hot and High" version with the A359 engines specifically mentioning Mexico as a place where such might be necessary

then maybe high altitude performance had more to do with this decison than we think....I remember reading an article about Mexicana's execs looking at an Asian market... is that where the 787 comes in??

like I said, I'll miss seeing those A330s in MX colors..


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9160 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 14):
Airbus recently offered an A358 "Hot and High" version with the A359 engines specifically mentioning Mexico as a place where such might be necessary.

The 787-8 can be fitted with the 75,000lb thrust engines designed for the 787-9, offering up to 9,000lbs more thrust. That should make a 787-8 a real hot-rod.

The 787-8 would also offer more revenue cargo volume than the A350-800 since both have 28 LD3 positions, but the 787-8 would seat less so you would not use as many positions for luggage.


User currently offlinecaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8981 times:

Quoting Fyano773 (Thread starter):
Seems the 767 fits better in MX's current long-haul network because they can rotate the type indistinctively between Europe and Southamerica, improving load factors with the right amount of seats and commonality with the rest of the wb fleet. Additionally, MEX-LGW could be turned from 4x to 7x weekly, etc.

I think costs are the most important factor here. What are the seating capacities on the two?

Quoting netjetsintl (Reply 1):
"767 a better fit"??? I see your point about rotating the type and "commonality" with the rest of their wide-body fleet.... The problem is they will loose commonality with the rest of the fleet
Quoting aa1818 (Reply 2):
Are the benefits of commonality between the WB and NB Airbus models really that compelling?

From what I understand fleet commonality is practically negligible between wide and narrowbody. In the narrowbody fleet, an all airbus fleet, gives the benefits of possible the same engines, spares, same pilot and FA type rating. Huge benefits there if you have large fleet of 320 series.

But none of the above really applies between wb and nb, though it has been said that the conversion for the pilot's type rating is with minimal time, so there is a benefit. I don't think it is enough to ensure that wide and narrowbody are from the same manufacturer.



There is something special about planes....
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2315 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8784 times:

I never understand the anti 767 rants. Sure they aren't as beautiful to look at when compared to the 330 but not much is to be honest. However, to rant about the 767 in terms of comfort makes zero sense. If you're flying a new build 767, so aircraft age being equal to any comparison plane, passenger comfort in a standard layout is about as good as it gets. This is the coziest widebody aircraft out there. We have this endless debate where I have to assume that the complainants must be comparing new SQ 330s to third hand DL 767s now flying in Africa. To really get a good handle on this I'd fly new builds of each plane on LAN and compare apples to apples. I think you'd be very impressed by the comfort of a 767.

User currently offlinecaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8770 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 19):
I think you'd be very impressed by the comfort of a 767.

I have only flown AA 763, and to be honest, I don't have any complaints, and the fact that the airplane is a bit narrower has a positive effect on the comfort level, as an A330 depending on the config can get rather cramped. Really, I have never thought of the A330 as comfortable. At least the configs I have seen, as that can vary. Most people just think bigger is better, instead of thinking bigger means being around more people. To the contrary, as someone with a slight problem with claustrophobia, unless sitting in a premium class, I find very big widebodies quite annoying. I suppose at the end of the day it is all about personal preference.



There is something special about planes....
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8466 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
The 787-8 can be fitted with the 75,000lb thrust engines designed for the 787-9, offering up to 9,000lbs more thrust. That should make a 787-8 a real hot-rod.

So the 788 will now feature 66,000lbs of thrust per engine vs. 64,000lbs initially? I guess that makes sense since Boeing increased MTOW to over 500,000lbs.

Quoting wingman (Reply 19):
I think you'd be very impressed by the comfort of a 767.

My wife and I flew CO's 764 from IAH-HNL back in January in Y, and were pretty impressed with the comfort considering we were in Y. Best twin aisle plane to fly on for any Y passenger...well I haven't flown on an A380 yet, but against everything else.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 8446 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 21):
So the 788 will now feature 66,000lbs of thrust per engine vs. 64,000lbs initially?

Rolls offers multiple options with differing thrust ranges. I am going to guess GE will offer something other than the 64,000lb thrust GEnx-1B64 and the 75,000lb thrust GEnx-1B75.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8333 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
The 787-8 can be fitted with the 75,000lb thrust engines designed for the 787-9, offering up to 9,000lbs more thrust. That should make a 787-8 a real hot-rod.

At sea level...At high altitude and hot temperatures, it'll run into the same temperature and rpm limits as the lower-thrust versions and won't necessarily provide more thrust. See here:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...62574250061f9cb/$FILE/E00078NE.pdf

The TCDS also tells us that currently, 72,300 lbf is the maximum certified takeoff thrust.

The Trent 1000 is slightly more powerful at up to 74,500 lbf.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu...625734c005243b9/$FILE/E00076EN.pdf

But I find this comment very interesting:

"The engine is not approved for operation with a[t] thrust reverser unit."

Does anybody know the story behind that???



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8131 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting A342 (Reply 23):
t sea level...At high altitude and hot temperatures, it'll run into the same temperature and rpm limits as the lower-thrust versions and won't necessarily provide more thrust.

Well I expect the Trent XWB is not magically immune to the same issues, so with the 787-8 being lighter at both MWE and MTOW, it strikes me as being the better choice for such operations and therefore why MX is leaning towards it (as their competitors AM have done).


25 CFBFrame : And they're cheaper, take in to account discounts and they might end up being free!!!!
26 JAL : This is the first time I have heard of this, would be great if confirmed!
27 olli : MX 762=156 and 763=169 according to Seat Guru. Low density indeed. Best Regards,
28 A342 : Of course not, but its lower wing loading should indeed give it a lower rotation speed and thus a better rwy performance. That applies at least to th
29 Stitch : Per chance could you note what the wing loading of a 787-8 at 228t and an A350-800 at 259t is? AM placed their order in August 2006 - about a month a
30 Fyano773 : In general and remembering some tech specs posted elsewhere, the 77L can make nonstops from MEX to NRT, ICN, PVG, PEK, HKG, etc. But NRT is the most
31 Stitch : LA and QR have both moved forward to 2011. At least the first ~25 787 customer delivery positions are spoken for.
32 aa1818 : That has been my view on it all along. I'm glad I wasn't waaay off! Do we have any more information on this "rumour". Anyone with MX contacts could s
33 N1120A : Not really. They already don't have commonality. Having a similar looking cockpit isn't what commonality is about. That is much more the issue. Super
34 Globeex : I would assume the 4 763 will cost the same as 2 A332.
35 A342 : Info on the 788's wing area is very hard to find. One website listed it as 347m², but they stated the 783's wing area is the same, which must be wro
36 Stitch : Piano-X shows 360m² and they say that is from Boeing, so that would put it at 633kg/m². That's dead-on what the wing loading of a 767-200ER at MTOW
37 AM744 : This means two things. More frequencies to LGW and more confort so I'm all for it.
38 aa1818 : Is it confirmed? AA1818
39 A342 : Oh, there is absolutely no doubt that the 787 will do well on routes currently served by the 767 (looking at the performance specs of the 767, I wond
40 Fyano773 : Seems MX has some internal problems: Rumors about the retirement of the 332 come from everywhere, now from the press... About the 350-800 I found thi
41 AM744 : Not really. What I had in mind is that the London market still has room for growth and the 762 2-3-2 is better than MX A332 3-3-3 layout.
42 Aeolus : Why not put the A332s on Asian routes and let the B787s and 767s handle South America and Europe? -Aeolus
43 aa1818 : might be more efficient to operate a more stremlined fleet. I doubt there's anythign that an A332 can do that a 787 can't. For the time being the 767
44 Viscount724 : Totally disagree. The 2-3-2 Y class configuration on a 767 is the best of all widebodies with only a 1 in 7 chance of a middle seat, vs. 1 in 4 on mo
45 A342 : With the ability to select seats during online check-in or simply ask if you do it at the airport, I've been able to get what I wanted (a window seat
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...
ATA To Swap 4 753 For 4 73G's posted Wed Sep 7 2005 23:12:07 by Tundra767
How Many Seats In AA's F/C/Y For 763 And 777? posted Tue Aug 26 2003 23:47:41 by *HighFlyah*
Continental To Park 2 777's For 2002 And Furlough posted Wed Jan 9 2002 16:49:24 by IAHERJ
Spirit Seeking To Swap Its A319s For A320s posted Tue Jul 14 2009 15:41:11 by OP3000
EVA Air 744 Back To LAX For May And June 09 posted Sat May 2 2009 03:07:37 by Vincewy
AA Upgrading EWR-LAX-EWR To 763 And 762 posted Sun Apr 12 2009 10:40:05 by N62NA
Hainan Airlines To Apply For DUS And HNL posted Tue Mar 10 2009 16:34:45 by B742
AeroMexico & Mexicana To Mexico, And Beyond! posted Thu Feb 19 2009 00:22:48 by MayaviaERJ190
What's The Reason For AZ And AUA To Be So Slow? posted Mon Oct 20 2008 23:34:39 by Beaucaire
AA To Swap EWR-EGE For JFK-EGE posted Fri Jul 4 2008 05:48:29 by AJMIA