VC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3183 posts, RR: 14 Posted (2 years 6 months 15 hours ago) and read 17340 times:
As a novice I am curious about some of my assumptions and desire for facts about the gaps between a 767 and a 787. I am very familiar with all the very cool features on board (if you've flown United lately you cant miss Smisek gloating over the pretty new plane) but I haven't even flown a 787 yet. Darn!
In December I was on a United 767-400, 6 times, long haul. All in BusinessFirst. It is such a beautiful and comfortable airplane. But the 787 is better, a "quantum leap" forward. Ad to my great experience on the 764, I also saw the pics and read here about LAN's (and ANA's) new 767's with winglets with a fair amount of pomp and finally the impressive fact that the 767 line is still running for 33 some years with no end in sight yet.
So, what are the X vs Y facts between the two? Not the increased cabin pressure, but the efficiency factors. Are today's plethora of 767's (the newer international ER models) still turning a decent margin and on the same route how much better is the 787 doing so far?
Last: in particular I am curious about the virtues (if there are) of the 764, an ac I have come to like very much. (I've only ever been on UA in a lie flat BF seat, I haven't flown Delta's) if UA could, would they have wished for more?
Thanks a billion in advance!
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
In round numbers comparing the 787-8 and 767-300ER:
The 787 flies 2,000 nm further
The 787 caries 25 more pax
The 787 burns 20% less fuel
The 787 costs 30% less to maintain (airframe)
The 787 costs 15% less to operate (CAROC)
The 787 costs $25M more to buy (list price)
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 16509 times:
If you put all the competing craft on the same scale graph for MZFW v Range, the huge gap between the largest narrow bodies and the 767 family becomes apparent.
There is a huge void here if someone comes up with the correct aircraft. Part of the reason this has not been filled, may be that it is not clear wether to go large narrow body or small widebody, whereas by the time you get to 767size a widebody is fairly clear.
I think the gap won't be closed until both Airbus and Boeing introduce totally new narrowbodies which I think they will give the potential for 250 seats out to 4000nm+.
Many here say that the 788 will cover this gap too, or a super stretched A321/739. I think it would be vice to design the NSA with some of that capability in mind from start, maybe a stronger uc,wing root extensions and higher thrust engines that only that larger model has, otherwise same stuff as the smaller models 160-190 seats up to 3500nm range.
If you could make a bigger plane with the same OEW as the current NBs that would probably make a larger more capable NB possible, one would have to minimize the special gadgets though to recoup the cost. For some routes flying a WB is abusing it and the current NBs cant make the range but otherwise fit the size needed. Depends on how the fuel cost will grow I guess, if we see another steep climb airlines will as for better optimized models.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 8146 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 7 hours ago) and read 16028 times:
Quoting VC10er (Thread starter): All in BusinessFirst. It is such a beautiful and comfortable airplane.
A question, is the comparison really about the a/c and their technicalities or the equipment that the airline chooses to install internally?
Technically only the difference in air pressure, speed of the a/c and noise of the engine are a/c specific, other than that, your comfort and impression of the a/c is strictly up to the airline. Some have ben on 767's whose interiors are "ratty" and the call the a/c obsolete, another airline can have the same a/c, same engines but updated interiro and its fine and are praised by pax.
Quoting sweair (Reply 3): The seating in the 767 is the best ever, 2-3-2 in economy, no cross section comes close to being this great.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 4): Personally, I prefer 2-4-2 in an Airbus A300/A330/A340 - no discernible difference in seating and a wider, more spacious feel to the cabin.
Take the two quotes above ,one is claiming that less people in a row based on the cross section of the a/c is more comfortable, the other is claiming that more people in the row with a larger corss section is more comfortable.
At the end of the day, how the airline chooses to cater to pax inside the a/c is the key for the majority of the travelling public, and in that regard, it really is a crap shoot which the OEM's really do not control.
Not sure how the 764 compares with the 788 in efficiency, however, when compared with the 763, the 764 has a lower CASM. In fact, the 764 has a lower CASM than the A332, despite what Airbus fans want you to believe; the A332 only sells better due to greater range and cargo capacity.
As for UA buying more 764s, I would actually say DL would be more likely to buy more than UA would. DL has been stocking up on oddball aircraft types in recent years (MD-90 and 717 come to mind), and there are indeed some transatlantic routes that don't need the added range and cargo capacity of the A332. The 764 has worked flawlessly for DL across the Atlantic, regardless of what Airbus fans tell you. In fact, if UA were to dump its 764s, I would guarantee with 99.99% confidence that DL would acquire them almost immediately.
[Edited 2013-01-05 07:48:28]
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 13898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 6 hours ago) and read 15597 times:
Quoting par13del (Reply 7): At the end of the day, how the airline chooses to cater to pax inside the a/c is the key for the majority of the travelling public, and in that regard, it really is a crap shoot which the OEM's really do not control.
Agreed, but the VAST majority of 767s have 2-3-2 in economy, and the VAST majority of A300/A330/A340s have 2-4-2 in economy.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
Looking at these numbers for interior cabin width, and how many seats across they can comfortable have, there seems to be a gap that can be filled with a new interior cabin width in the 14' to 15' range, seating 7, 8, or 9 abreast (based on 16" to 18" wide seats). 9 abreast seating would be crowded with 2 18" wide aisles and only 16" wide seats (14' wide cabin). No, I am not recommending this type of configueration to anyone. An 8 abreast seating with 17.5" wide seats would leave 2 aisles about 20" wide (14' wide cabin).
Something like this could be the next NB airplane, we could call it the 1.5NB, or NB1.5, even though it is not really 1.5 times as wide as todays NBs (nor are some of today's WBs). It is, of course not as wide as todays WBs at 15'6" to 20' wide, but making it 15' wide would put it right next to the narrowest WB today, the B-767. A fuselarge in this width would be the smallest practical to be made with a carbon fiber material, a sort of mini B-787. This would produce an airplane with about a 4,000 nm range, clearly a TATL airplane, as well as west US coast to Hawaii and TRANSCON. with a decend pax load and cargo. If this design were the same lenght as the B-739 (138' long), it would add some 50 seats to the AS configueration (32" pitch) in Y seats. On an AC A-321 (146' long), it would add about 54 seats (32" pitch) in Y seats. Both of these are based on an 8 abreast seating. A new design airplane like this would need 2X 28,000 lb to 30,000 lb thrust class engines such as the new CFMI LEAP-1A or -1B engines or the P&W GTF and have an OEW around 95,000 lbs to 100,000 lbs, MTOW could be near 215,000 lbs. This makes the basic airplane lighter than the B-739ER or the A-321, but with a higher MTOW for the additional range. The max fuel load would be around 6500 US Gallons, or about 42,250 lbs of fuel, leaving a max payload (pax, baggage, and cargo) of about 72,750 lbs. The cargo capacity would be about 1900 cuft to 2000 cuft., or about 12-13 LD-3s.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12280 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 14557 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 11): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Can you build a twin aisle small body in the current NB weight class? I think the NSA will still be plain old 3-3 and as badly stretched on longer routes to be good at 500nm routes.
The 215K MTOW I suggested is a lot less than the B-757, MTOW up to 272.5K.
Quoting idlewildchild (Reply 12): Though all new aircraft have bugs he led me to believe some of the bugs on the 787 were pretty serious, including fuel line issues.
All of the issues are being addressed, including those thought to be serious, like the fuel line issue and the GEnx engine issue and about the same seriousness as the A-380's rib feet cracking problem, which effects all current A-380s. The other B-787 issues are minor in nature.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17161 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 5 hours ago) and read 14485 times:
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8): The 764 has worked flawlessly for DL across the Atlantic, regardless of what Airbus fans tell you.
The funny thing is that the 764 would probably be more robust of a long haul aircraft, and sold better, had it not be for DL. Boeing built the 764 to satisfy two customers, CO and DL, however both carriers requirements of them were for totally different missions. CO wanted the 764 to replace their DC-10-30s which were the backbone of their International fleet flying long range flights like EWR-SCL, EWR-HNL, EWR-FCO etc.. DL wanted them to replace their L1011s on domestic legs such as ATL-MCO, ATL-FLL, LAX-HNL etc..
Boeing had originally designed the 764 for longer range, which had a larger wing, however DL needed something smaller to fit into their domestic operations. Thus the aircraft that was developed was a compromise between DL needing something with a smaller wing to fit into gates in places like ATL, FLL etc. and CO's need for intercontinental range. Later during their bankruptcy DL reconfigured the 764s for International flights and took them off the ATL-Florida, Las Vegas, California runs. If the 764 were developed as originally intended, more range and bigger wing, it probably would have sold much more than what has been built.
CO originally had 26 764s on order, however they converted ten of those to 777s as they shifted their attention to opening up Asia from EWR.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32532 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 14394 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 17): If the 764 were developed as originally intended, more range and bigger wing, it probably would have sold much more than what has been built.
The 767-400ERX did address both of those issues through higher MTOW, a tailplane fuel tank and more powerful engines. And yet it only secured three orders from Kenyan Airways and was eventually cancelled along with the 747-500X / 747-600X (as it was to share engines with that program).
The 767-400ER gets a bad rap because of low sales just like the A340-500 does. However, the planes were designed to fill a need for some important carriers and Boeing, at least, has a long history of doing special models for their customers.
However, there are indeed missions where the 764 is more appropriate than the A332, and that includes a large portion fo DL's transatlantic network. Not all of DL's transatlantic routes need the A332's added range or cargo capacity.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3666 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 14104 times:
Quoting ADent (Reply 1): Boeing built a 767-400 a couple of years ago for the US DOD. So Boeing can, and will build more for the right price.
No they can't. The supplier can no longer make the Flight Deck display system. It would have to have a new display system designed. The DOD airplane was built more in the same time frame as the DL and CO airplanes. It was more than just a few years ago. I think it sat around for many years before being delivered so that might be what you are thinking.
Britannia apparently came close to ordering it. I would have loved to see AA buy it but the different (and much more modern) display system of the 767-400 than the 767/757s in their fleet deterred AA.
Excellent airplane by many accounts. It was just a bit under-ranged and under-powered for some missions. As some other posters indicated, it was designed somewhat for some DL needs which limited some of the missions other customers may have wanted.
The 767-400 is a lot like the 717 in the respect that it's an outstanding reliable economical well performing airplane. Customers that have them really like them. Other factors than the quality of the airplane doomed it to low sales - lack of flight deck commonality with other models being one.
You were after something in size between a A321 and a 762? But how efficient would a frame like that be on 500nm routes that many 738s fly?
Most of the NB market is really short routes, that however does not take away the abuse of WBs on long and thin that a more capable NB could excel at. Many here even think 788 will be good at 4000nm routes. WB fan boys I call them
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6592 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 13657 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 13): And yet only 37 764s have ever been sold, compared with 576 A332s...
The better cross section of the A330 and the much higher range account for this difference.
Ultimately the cross section and the wing were the two big weaknesses the 767 faced in competing with the A330. Neither one is easy to fix, which is why we got first the 777 and then the 787, rather than more and bigger 767 derivatives.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 9292 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 3 hours ago) and read 13349 times:
To try to answer the original question - - although I am poorly equipped to do so - - the 763ER winglet is fairly low in cost, depreciated financially and is still a very good performer. We can expect it still will last 10-20 years more service with major US carriers.
The 788 is being used primarily for its long range. For missions the 763ER can't do. Also, the 764ERs will keep flying until way past 2020. So despite Boeing's advertisements, the 787 is not exactly a 767 replacement. What it really is, is an A330 replacement. That must satisfy Boeing very much.
There isn't crystal clear evidence the 788 burns less fuel per hour than the 763ER winglet. Since 787 is bigger, and a little faster, the per seat-mile efficiency of 787 will crush 767 as a new-build airliner. This does _not_ mean the 767 is functionally obsolete - - it will holds its own as a junior sister fleet of the 787 for many years.
[Edited 2013-01-05 10:22:05]
: There is a whole thread dedicated to the 787 and its reliablility issues with people who really know technical issues and aircraft much better than m
: FX was rumored to go with the 764, yet switched to the 763 seemingly at the last minute. Again DL's requirements for the 764 to shuttle back and four
: If I had the opportunity to fly the 787, I would ignore all the stats that mire so many threads here, and enjoy the flight as a triumph of ingenuity a
: It's more than that. Windows (size and placement), all noise sources (not just engines), ride smoothness, ECS (temperature accuracy and stability, ai
: From PIANO -X taking just one load and range point, 5000nm payload 32t the 788 as per ACAP burns 48.471t of fuel. A 767-300ER with winglets will burn
: I think you mean the 747X program of the early 2000s. The 747-500X and 747-600X programs were mid-90s Boeing designs that were ultimately cancelled f
: Is there some kind of date when the serious issues will be resolved by, and what does it all mean to the current 787 fleet that are in operation? Wil
: The A330-300 has better CASM, but it does it through greater passenger capacity - so more available seat miles to spreads those costs across. Conside
: The A388 seats about 50% more passengers than the 77W. It's in a different category altogether, and, yes, the 77W has sold almost 3 time better. The
: In fact, Boeing did initially offer the 772 as a widebody trijet replacement for DL and CO, and both airlines flat out rejected it, deeming it as too
: Personally I've always wondered why they didn't just do that - offer 77A's or -E's at a tasty price just to avoid the hassle. Granted, what CO and DL
: 20% more passengers is ABSOLUTELY NOT in the same size category as the 764; the A333 seats nearly as many passengers as the 772. Boeing's direct comp
: In DL's configuration, the A330-200 seats 243 and the 767-400ER seats 246, so the are in the same category. And yet the 767-400 has lower CASM. The A
: And of course, potential doesn't mean actual. The cargo hold on any flight is never guaranteed to be full all the time. Both the 764 and A332 have mo
: HAD, not HAS. A newer 333 has improved a lot range wise than when in competed with (and beat) the 764 12-15 years ago
: In the middle seat I would take 2 neighbours over 3 The 2-3-2 is still king cramped up in economy.
: It is in a similar size category. I don't think one can explain the dismal sales of the 764 simply because the A332 has more range, when, indeed, the
: As I stated already, the A333 is nearly the size of a 772, and its direct Boeing competitor is the 772A, NOT the 764. If the A333 is in the same size
: One issue with trying to compare the A330-300 and 767-400ER is that the A330-300 was launched almost a decade prior. So the A330-300 had a significant
: How can you say that when you look at the numbers of A332s and 764s sold? It's obviously not "only" for the reasons you mention. In hindsight, I doub
: It is. It only sold 88 copies. Why? Worse CASM than the A333 for similar size and range.. Yes, it is. But it competed in the long (or ultra-long, if
: In the centre section you only have to pass one passenger to get to the aisle in either case. You only ever have two direct neighbours maximum.
: However in the single middle seat on the 767 you have 2 options to leave your seat, both involving disturbing only one other passenger (e.g. if one i
: The data in this plot may be a couple of years old, but it gets the point across.
: They probably didn't, but by not pushing DL and CO to the A330-200, both continued to buy Boeing widebodies and they both placed orders for the 787 i
: Well, DL inherited from NW both a large number of A330s and the order for 18 787s. So I don't quite see your point, at least for DL.
: The merger with NW wasn't anticipated at the time DL ordered the 764ER.
: Of course. What I meant is that a) DL did not order the 787, NW did; and b) NW ordered the 787 even after choosing the 330 (not the 764) to replace t
: I'm 100% confident DL would have eventually ordered the 787 if they'd stayed independent and that they're keeping the order inherited from NW is evid
: I don't see how you can be 100% sure. Especially after DL decided to defer their 787s to the next decade. But, in any case, my point is that NW order
: DL needed an a/c and decided that additional 763's was not it, at the time the choices were the 772A or the A330, if Boeing had not come up with the
: That was not my complete sentence, which was My point was that it was not a given that DL would have gone from the A330 to the A350: NW (hence DL!) w
: But deciding on the A330 vs additional 767s makes it more likely. You are looking at with hindsight, in the 90s nobody was thinking about the 787 vs
: Yes, of course. It all started with somebody upthread stating that DL's "ordering" the 787 and not the A350 was proof of the wisdom of Boeing's strat
: Nothing is a given at the time unless we are involved with the decision, hence I said good bet, even Stitch is expressing an opinion even if he uses
: I believe DL had some labor problems regarding the pilots and 777 pay rates that resulted in them having a small 777 fleet for so long. They original
: The 333 was/is way too much plane to replace the L-1011s. They would most likely have gone with the 763. I don't agree that they would have taken the
: Not anybody that can read or add. Also on this whole 764 nonsense - the only advantage it has is that you can park it more places. Otherwise its an o
: That's not really correct. It does have lower CASM so for a route which doesn't have freight demands which it cannot accommodate in belly cargo and d
: Per ASM. I think that needs to be clarified. The 787 actually burns more fuel per trip, but it has significantly more passenger and cargo capacity.
: In fact, a narrowbody flying 4000nm+ routes with 200+ pax would tend to be quite inefficient in the narrowbody's bread and butter 500nm-750nm route ca
: The question is when the 767s and 757s and A332s are gone from the market, what will replace all these flying frames? As many routes these frames cur
: Why limit yourself to the A333, at the time DL was looking at replacing the L-1011's. The 763 was already in house, if it was that obvious a choice w
: It definitely does per ASM (that's where the 20% figure came from), but there is some overlap even on trip fuel...i.e. there are missions where the 7
: The data in Reply 29 does not suggest that. Based on a 30t payload, 700nm range, the 788 burns 7.844t and the 767-300ER with winglets, 7.819t. This g
: The 787 and 764 have about the same number of pax in a 3-class per Boeing (everyone knows that they have the most amazing sit pitches and arrangement
: The data I provided was based on a payload > than max passenger load. The seating used by PIANO-X to arrive at max passenger load is for the 788 2
: Total agreement there. The 767's seating arrangement is by far the best. Airy cabin feel with nice wide seats.
: The only reason anyone would buy a 767 at this point in time is if they need a plane for cheap and very fast, because it looks like it might be quite
: As the thread starter this very basic comparison for a novice is perfect, thanks. Many other posts are enlightening too but I have to admit it got a
: 242 is the Boeing 3-class for a 788. 238 is Boeing 2-class for a 763. 3-class is only 218 IIRC. 764 3-class is 245. Only if they needed a slightly ch
: So it can fly LAX-NRT??? I believes the 764 lives on as the US Air Force Tanker now!
: A 764 can't fly LAX-NRT with an appreciable load, and no, the US Air Force Tanker is a 767-200. NS
: The Boeing quoted range of 5625 NM is enough to fly LAX-NRT, though add in winds and it gets tight. NRT-LAX no problem. That's what Boeing says. In re