mainMAN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 2117 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9076 times:
Quite a difficult question to answer, but from my neck of the woods MAN - SFO or MAN - LAX would be nice. However, there's no reason why a 767 couldn't do these flights today, but evidently they can't profitably.
tayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 8446 times:
MEL-LAX (CONited - assuming they drop their SYD-MEL-SYD tags with larger aircraft).
SYD-SFO (remove 747 and go daily 787)
BNE-YVR (AC - assuming the AU-CA bilateral is updated)
BNE-LAX (QF changed from 747)
SYD-SEA/SYD-PDX (QF - a very very long-shot)
joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3201 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8387 times:
Quoting Irishpower (Thread starter): One of the ways Boeing has marketed the 787 for long/thin routes is that new international city pairs would be created that normally wouldn't be possible with todays larger and more expensive a/c.
Actually, there isn't much the 787-8 can do, what the 330-200 cannot do. Of course, the 788 will likely be slightly more fuel efficient and will have a slightly better payload / range curve than the 332. And there might be a few routes are there that are slightly loss-making with the 332, and could be just profitable with the 788. But for airlines already operating the 332 (DL, AB, UX), the 787-8 won't open lots of opportunities.
For airlines who now rely on the 763, the 788 is a bigger step up and it might open some opportunities and we might see some news here.
I don't expect many airlines to operate the 788 on very long routes. The market for > 7,000nm flights is just very small.
We'll probably see the 787 appear on many routes now flown with 763 and 772.
tayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8330 times:
Quoting joost (Reply 4): Actually, there isn't much the 787-8 can do, what the 330-200 cannot do
I think you will find that a 332 cannot fly from the East coast of Australia to the West Coast of North America in both directions year-round - (assuming the specs Boeing sold the aircraft come into fruition):
AKL-LAX 5652nm (QF fly a 332 on this route)
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4195 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8289 times:
Boston-Asia (anywhere, pretty much) would be extremely likely. I would be rather dismayed if the plane instead went on JFK routes that are already well-served by other aircraft. Boston-Asia represents the 'long-and-thin' type of market that the 787 was presumably made for. There isn't anything over the Atlantic from Boston that would make much sense, aside from maybe the Middle East. But I think demand is much greater from Boston to Asian markets than to anywhere in the Middle East.
If I were a betting person--and I'm not--this would be my pick, too. Both the destination and the airline...mostly because ANA will be one of the first carriers flying the plane, and because I've long felt that the first airline to serve a Boston-Asia route (not counting Korean's 744s several years ago) would be a foreign flag carrier...not one of our own. It saddens me to predict that, but it's what I feel will happen. Our own flag carriers are still in too much disarray to launch a route from Boston to Asia. They are all way too heavily invested in JFK to consider a smaller city 200 miles to the north of New York. But ANA (or even JAL) does see the value of serving Boston nonstop rather than 'forcing' passengers through JFK. Enough people would pay good money to avoid that interim stop.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7936 times:
Quoting joost (Reply 4): Actually, there isn't much the 787-8 can do, what the 330-200 cannot do. Of course, the 788 will likely be slightly more fuel efficient and will have a slightly better payload / range curve than the 332. And there might be a few routes are there that are slightly loss-making with the 332, and could be just profitable with the 788. But for airlines already operating the 332 (DL, AB, UX), the 787-8 won't open lots of opportunities.
He?! you work for an airline? This is a.net!
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9): The only new routes the 788 will really open up are routes that are just outside the A332's effective range.
Or the long thin routes 1993 A340..
I concluded the same during the high of the Dreamliner hype, 5 years ago .
"Boeing 787: Great Aircraft, Not A Game Changer "
Oops wrong timing.. however in reality aircraft fill in network requirements, not the other way around..
A 787 is so much less expensive to operate than an original A340 that it's only natural it would open up additional route opportunities. There's a reason the A332 sold hundreds of copies where the A342 attracted virtually no interest, and the 787 just builds on that difference.
SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5736 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7558 times:
To some of us in the OTHER city in Southern California, San Diego is the poster child for the Dreamliner! Not necessarily because of light markets or thin traffic volume (once routes are opened up from Lindbergh Field we will finally see how many LAX-boardings actually become SAN-pax) but more of an operational issue due to airport-surrounding terrain which we hope the 787 will "fix".
For example, BA is re-starting SAN-LHR in June using a T7 but has already indicated that the route will undoubtedly become a 787-route once the plane enters their fleet. The new a/c is expected to eliminate most payload (read: cargo) limitations that current wide-body a/c see when flying intercontinentally out of Lindbergh (due to the climb rate required by the Pt Loma "hills" just off the end of runway 27.)
The hope is that Asia, more Europe, and South America will finally be available as nonstop destinations from San Diego once the 787 is available for such flying. The markets are there, the limitations of our airport remain the problem.
Too long (or, in the case of ADD-JFK, too hot and high). The 787-8 is not a ULH airplane, folks. With a full passenger payload, it will have about the same useful range as a 77E. The 787-9 should give airlines a few hundred extra nm, but it's no replacement for a 77L -- which is really what's needed to fly these very demanding routes.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 7469 times:
New routes would be really difficult to speculate on because at first, new aircraft with new premium seating would mostly be placed on flagship routes to places like LHR and NRT from main hubs. There would only be a very few new long/thin routes like IAH-AKL. After the buzz has worn off and enough aircraft have been delivered then they will start to look a new routes but the first priority will be to fatten profits on existing 767/A330 routes.
The hopes of many that they will get international flights to everywhere from their second or third tier city will probably never be realized.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26382 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7000 times:
Quoting tayser (Reply 3): BNE-YVR (AC - assuming the AU-CA bilateral is updated)
The Canada-Australia bilateral permits Canadian carriers to serve SYD and one other point in Australia of their choice. The same applies for Australian carries serving Canada which can serve YVR and one other point. There's no reason the 2nd point couldn't be BNE, and NE was served by Canada 3000 for a while in addition to SYD duiring their brief period of Canada-Australia service before they went bust.
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6648 times:
This will hopefully be a boon for BOS, as our non-hub status has kept some routes that may have been profitable otherwise. BOS-NRT, ICN, and PEK will be good ones for TPAC. For TATL, some Eastern European or Middle Eastern markets may work as well.
2013 World Series Champions!
: If MEL is the 2nd taken up by AC (as has previously been mooted) then there's going to have to be change with regards to the agreement - AC's CEO at
: The disarray I speak of is financial. These airlines simply don't have the appetite to hire enough people to staff flights like this, and it is why t