Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?  
User currently onlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2898 posts, RR: 9
Posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16971 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!
78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 16978 times:

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.

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 16656 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
So, what are the X vs Y facts between the two?

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)


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 16521 times:

The seating in the 767 is the best ever, 2-3-2 in economy, no cross section comes close to being this great.

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12568 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 16261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

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.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 16140 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+.

Pure speculation on my part

Ruscoe


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15770 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 5):

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.


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15659 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.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15304 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):

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
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12568 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 15079 times:

Cabin width (interior with seating);

B-737NG = 11' 7", 6 abreast
B-767-300ER/-400ER = 15' 6", 7-8 abreast
B-787-8/-9 = 18', 9-10 abreast

A-300/-310/-330/-340 = 17' 3.6", 9-10 abreast
A-32X = 12' 2", 6 abreast

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.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14468 times:

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.


User currently offlineidlewildchild From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14448 times:

Sat next to UA/PMCO captain last week flying home from LHR and learned, at least on that date, all the 787s were grounded because of various issues.

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.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14282 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8):
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.
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8):
The 764 has worked flawlessly for DL across the Atlantic, regardless of what Airbus fans tell you.

And yet only 37 764s have ever been sold, compared with 576 A332s...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14188 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.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14151 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 13):
And yet only 37 764s have ever been sold, compared with 576 A332s...

Just goes to show that CASM isn't everything.


User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6476 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14115 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8):
; the A332 only sells better due to greater range and cargo capacity.


If you are sure about that statement please givedetails

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8):
The 764 has worked flawlessly for DL across the Atlantic, regardless of what Airbus fans tell you. In


So has the a332 worked flawlessly and most aviation people would consider it better aircraft mainly because of range and capacity. I believe your love of the 764 has a bit of tunnel vision to it.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14116 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.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13898 times:

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 16):

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
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3076 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13735 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.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13612 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):

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  


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13288 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.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13067 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Just goes to show that CASM isn't everything.

Either that or it shows that the A333, with a similar range that the 764, has a better CASM, and it has sold over 600 frames...

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 22):
The better cross section of the A330 and the much higher range account for this difference.

The A333 has a similar range to the 764 and it has sold much much better , because of its better CASM.

The 764 is stuck in the middle, with the relatively poor range of the A333 and the relatively poor CASM of the A332. Hence its lack of success.

[Edited 2013-01-05 10:14:29]


AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8544 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12980 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]

User currently onlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2241 posts, RR: 12
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13212 times:

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.

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 myself. Relying and reporting on the comments of one pilot doesn't hold much weight unless they are the chief pilot for a an aircraft type. I know three pilots personally, and hear a lot of the pilot jabber and gossip all the time. Much of it is no more reliable than any watercooler chatter at any company. They also can be biased to certain aircraft types like many on Anet. One pilot I know claimed he would only fly Airbus aircraft with the stick, and now has changed his tune flying a B748F for a major airline calling it the best plane he has ever flown lol.

The B764 is a great aircraft but destined to be a niche aircraft and therefore will never have many more sales. unless a freight company desides that a 764F which is not currently offered but Boeing could easily make, fits their requirements better than a B763 or A330F.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13094 times:

Quoting pnwtraveler (Reply 26):
The B764 is a great aircraft but destined to be a niche aircraft and therefore will never have many more sales. unless a freight company desides that a 764F which is not currently offered but Boeing could easily make, fits their requirements better than a B763 or A330F.

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 fourth between ATL and Florida is what really cut out the potential from the 764. While DL's current management has proven to be quite savvy, the folks making fleet decisions for DL 12-15 years ago didn't have a clue. DL should have been looking at the 757-300s to meet their needs for ATL-Florida, not the 764.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3560 posts, RR: 26
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 12860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 and perseverance over materials, sub contractors, nay sayers, and unanticipated problems. Much the way I felt years ago when the 707's replaces props.

reading the question and the responses, one would think many miss the journey's experience for the accounting details at the destination.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 12785 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 7):
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.

It's more than that. Windows (size and placement), all noise sources (not just engines), ride smoothness, ECS (temperature accuracy and stability, air cleanliness & odor, humidity) are all inherent to the aircraft and there is very little the airline can do to alter them.

Tom.


User currently onlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 12408 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 24):
There isn't crystal clear evidence the 788 burns less fuel per hour than the 763ER winglet

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 54.651t

The 767 as above, hauls its max passenger load 6070nm for a fuel burn of 64.57t The 788 with the same load over 6070nm burns 56.742t.
PIANO-X is considered accurate within ~1 to 1.5% or less.


User currently offlineHoMsaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 12271 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):

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).

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 following the Asian financial crisis in the late 90s (back when the current 767-400ER was just entering service).

Boeing then came back with a 747X (I don't think it ever got a series number) around the same time as the 767-400ERX proposal. I think this was also around the same time as the Sonic Cruiser, but I can't remember offhand which, specifically, came first.

The 747X eventually mutated into the 747-8, and the Sonic Cruiser and 767-400ERX programs were both eventually dropped (though I can't remember which got dropped first), in favor of the 7E7. The 7E7 was supposed to be really cool with a sharkfin tail and everything, but by the time it became the 787, all the cool looks except for the new nose were dropped.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineidlewildchild From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12019 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
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.

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? Will ANA, JL, etc all have to ground their aircraft again to put the fixes in?

Quoting kanban (Reply 27):
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 and perseverance over materials, sub contractors, nay sayers, and unanticipated problems. Much the way I felt years ago when the 707's replaces props.

reading the question and the responses, one would think many miss the journey's experience for the accounting details at the destination.

I think I'll wait at least a year until they seem to be operating consistently normally. I read this morning UA delayed their IAH-LOS service because of the problems. Then again I wouldn't have wanted to fly the A380s until they fix those structural issues too. I guess I'm old and remember the Comet and don't want to be some guinea pig on something that needs fixing!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11967 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Just goes to show that CASM isn't everything.
Quoting UALWN (Reply 23):
Either that or it shows that the A333, with a similar range that the 764, has a better CASM, and it has sold over 600 frames...

The A330-300 has better CASM, but it does it through greater passenger capacity - so more available seat miles to spreads those costs across.

Consider the A380-800 - it has better CASM, better (passenger) capacity and better range than the 777-300ER. And yet the 777-300ER has outsold it 671 to 262 over the same general period of availability. And near-term sales prospects for the 77W remain stronger than those for the A388. If "CASM is King", then one would expect the A388 to have the stronger sales. But clearly the 77W has other elements that appeal to operators and they therefore buy it.


If Boeing knew they would only sell 37 of them, they probably would have tried to cut CO and DL a better deal on the 777-200. But Boeing has a history of producing special versions of their planes for carriers - they built six 707-138s for QF, which was a 5-frame shrink of the 707-120 - so if CO and DL had dug their feet in, Boeing probably still would have gone forward.



Quoting HoMsaR (Reply 36):
I think you mean the 747X program of the early 2000s.


Yes, the Trent 600 and GP7100 would have been shared with the 747X and 747X Stretch. Now that I look back on it, I don't think Boeing ever nailed down what powerplant would have been used with the 747-500X / -600X / -700X.

[Edited 2013-01-05 12:36:39]

[Edited 2013-01-05 12:37:35 by SA7700]

User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11808 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
Consider the A380-800 - it has better CASM, better (passenger) capacity and better range than the 777-300ER. And yet the 777-300ER has outsold it 671 to 262 over the same general period of relativity.

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 A333 seats about 20% more people than the 764, hence it's in a similar, if not the same, category. Yet it has sold almost 20 times better.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11787 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
If Boeing knew they would only sell 37 of them, they probably would have tried to cut CO and DL a better deal on the 777-200. But Boeing has a history of producing special versions of their planes for carriers - they built six 707-138s for QF, which was a 5-frame shrink of the 707-120 - so if CO and DL had dug their feet in, Boeing probably still would have gone forward.

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 much airplane for that mission. Boeing then proposed to them a 771, but since its economics wouldn't have been much better than the 772 due to it being a shrink, DL and CO again said no. Thus, Boeing gave them the 764.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1577 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11718 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
If Boeing knew they would only sell 37 of them, they probably would have tried to cut CO and DL a better deal on the 777-200. But Boeing has a history of producing special versions of their planes for carriers - they built six 707-138s for QF, which was a 5-frame shrink of the 707-120 - so if CO and DL had dug their feet in, Boeing probably still would have gone forward.

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 had in mind may not have been as viable with a 777, but it is interesting that Boeing went with the 764 instead of a special 777 package.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11667 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 33):
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 A333 seats about 20% more people than the 764, hence it's in a similar, if not the same, category. Yet it has sold almost 20 times better.

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 competitor to the A333 was the 772A. The 764 and A332 are in the DC-10/L-1011 size class, and both actually have more cargo volume than their trijet predecessors.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 33):
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 A333 seats about 20% more people than the 764, hence it's in a similar, if not the same, category.

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 A330-200 has sold exponentially better than the 767-400ER, but it can't have done so on CASM because with the same available seat miles, the 767-400ER has lower costs.

So why did the A330-200 sell so much better? As 1337Delta764 and seabosdca suggested, it was the greater potential RASM and greater range. The A330-200 can lift more revenue cargo by weight and volume than the 767-400ER so even if it costs a bit more to operate per trip, it can generate more money per trip. The A330-200 was also aimed at the 767-300ER (as the 767-400ER did not exist at the time) and was designed to offer better CASM and RASM than that platform. So 767-300ER operators were placing replacement orders for the A330-200 and new customers looking at the ~225-seat / 6000nm market were buying the A330-200 instead of the 767-300ER.

Quite frankly, the 767-400ER was too late to the party. If it had launched and entered service at the same times as the A330-200 (especially if Boeing had launched it in 767-400ERX form), the sales figures might not have been as lopsided...


Quoting LHCVG (Reply 35):
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.

They may very well have done so.

Boeing did consider folding wingtips for the 777-200 to allow it to fit in 767-sized gates. Boeing also dusted off the 777-100 concept with a lower TOW and pitched it to DL and CO, but as 1337Delta764 noted, the cost per seat was quite high and both airlines balked. So at that point, Boeing moved forward with the 767-400ER.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11146 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):

So why did the A330-200 sell so much better? As 1337Delta764 and seabosdca suggested, it was the greater potential RASM and greater range. The A330-200 can lift more revenue cargo by weight and volume than the 767-400ER so even if it costs a bit more to operate per trip, it can generate more money per trip. The A330-200 was also aimed at the 767-300ER (as the 767-400ER did not exist at the time) and was designed to offer better CASM and RASM than that platform. So 767-300ER operators were placing replacement orders for the A330-200 and new customers looking at the ~225-seat / 6000nm market were buying the A330-200 instead of the 767-300ER.

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 more cargo volume than the DC-10 and L-1011, and no airline has seemed to have any issue with lack of cargo capacity with those aircraft types. Furthermore, DL has a larger premuim cabin on the 764 than it does on the A332, and the fare premium on those seats could give the 764 an advantage on some routes.

[Edited 2013-01-05 13:26:23]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3389 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10912 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 23):

The A333 has a similar range to the 764 and it has sold much much better , because of its better CASM.

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


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10800 times:

In the middle seat I would take 2 neighbours over 3   The 2-3-2 is still king cramped up in economy.

User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10600 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 36):
20% more passengers is ABSOLUTELY NOT in the same size category as the 764

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 764 has more than enough range for TATL missions. The main reason is the A333, which has much better economics than the 764 for those same missions while being in a similar size category.

The A388 carries about 25% more people than the 748. Aren't they in a similar category? Aren't they competing against each other? And, by the way, isn't the A388 selling much better than the 748 because of its better CASM, even if it's bigger?



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10486 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 41):
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 764 has more than enough range for TATL missions. The main reason is the A333, which has much better economics than the 764 for those same missions while being in a similar size category.

The A388 carries about 25% more people than the 748. Aren't they in a similar category? Aren't they competing against each other? And, by the way, isn't the A388 selling much better than the 748 because of its better CASM, even if it's bigger?

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 category as the 764, why isn't the 772 also in the same size category? The A343 is the same size as the A333 but with four engines, and competed with the 772ER. Is the A343 also in the same size category?

As for the A388 vs. 748, the VLA market is very limited and thus a comparison between them can be made. However, comparing the 764 to the A333 is completely flawed and downright pointless.

Fact is, if CASM was the deciding factor for all aircraft purchases, wouldn't the 753 had sold far more aircraft than it did? The 753 probably has the lowest CASM of all time, yet it sold poorly.

[Edited 2013-01-05 14:22:40]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10318 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 lead-time in the market before the 767-400ER became available.

I also don't believe it's realistic to compare the two because, as 1337Delta764 noted, Boeing had an A330-300 competitor in service before the 767-400ER - the 777-200. Unfortunately for the 777-200, it's empty weight is significantly higher than that of the A330-300 and the 777-200 didn't fare well at all against the A330-300 because it's fuel burn is a fair bit higher. And if the 777-200,with more passenger and cargo capacity than the A330-300, couldn't match the A330-300, then Boeing deciding to compete by launching a plane that was smaller in passenger and cargo capacity to the A330-300 strikes me to be counterproductive.



The A330-200 followed the A330-300 by almost a decade because the A330-300 couldn't effectively compete against the 767-300ER: it was far more efficient when filled, but it was far larger so if you couldn't fill it... The 767-300ER also had significantly more range than the A330-300.

As we have seen, the A330-200 was a very effective competitor against the 767-300ER and Boeing had to respond. They did so with the 767-400ER which wasn't up to the task, so they started work on an improved model (the 767-400ERX), however by then the market had already committed sufficiently to the A330-200 that they were not interested in the 767-400ER(X).

[Edited 2013-01-05 14:35:59]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10069 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 8):
despite what Airbus fans want you to believe; the A332 only sells better due to greater range and cargo capacity.

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.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
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.

In hindsight, I doubt Boeing would have launched the 764 if they knew they would only sell 37. I highly doubt they recovered the significant development and certificationcosts considering the many changes from the 763 (new landing gear, new fuselage construction technique using the 777 windows and many others).

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 38):
Furthermore, DL has a larger premuim cabin on the 764 than it does on the A332, and the fare premium on those seats could give the 764 an advantage on some routes.

The significantly wider Airbus cabin is much more flexible and comfortable in the premium classes with 2-2-2 seating which DL used for many years on all 767s (prior to the current flat-bed seats). 2-2-2 on any 767 means narrower seats and aisles. With the old-style recliner seats the 767 can only match A330 standards in J class with 5-abreast seating which CO offered but not DL. Any premium class product with only one less seat abreast than Y class is rather poor. One exception is BA's Club World on 777s (8-abreast vs. 9-abreast in Y) but that works only because half the seats face backwards to make better use of the space.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9567 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 42):
If the A333 is in the same size category as the 764, why isn't the 772 also in the same size category?

It is. It only sold 88 copies. Why? Worse CASM than the A333 for similar size and range..

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 42):
The A343 is the same size as the A333 but with four engines, and competed with the 772ER. Is the A343 also in the same size category?

Yes, it is. But it competed in the long (or ultra-long, if you wish) range market, against the 772ER. And the 772ER sold better because of its better CASM for a similar size and range.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 42):
As for the A388 vs. 748, the VLA market is very limited and thus a comparison between them can be made. However, comparing the 764 to the A333 is completely flawed and downright pointless.

OK, so then what can the 764 be compared with? The A332, which has a much larger range? No. The A333, which is 20% larger? No. Conclusion: the 764 is in a class of itself, a class comprising all of 37 planes...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12568 posts, RR: 46
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 40):
In the middle seat I would take 2 neighbours over 3

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.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9022 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 46):
Quoting sweair (Reply 40):
In the middle seat I would take 2 neighbours over 3

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 is sleeping and the other isn't). In one of the 2 middle seats on the A330/340 on a full flight you're probably not going to want to disturb the 2 passengers on one side so you really one have one way to easily reach the aisle.

Also a significantly lower need for anyone to have to select a middle seat on a 767 (load factor has to be 87% vs. only 75% on an A330/340).


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 56
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8960 times:

The data in this plot may be a couple of years old, but it gets the point across.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8613 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 44):
In hindsight, I doubt Boeing would have launched the 764 if they knew they would only sell 37. I highly doubt they recovered the significant development and certificationcosts considering the many changes from the 763 (new landing gear, new fuselage construction technique using the 777 windows and many others).

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 instead of the A350. So in hindsight, Boeing probably isn't crying too much.  


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8488 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 49):
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 instead of the A350.

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.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8427 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 50):
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.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8315 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 51):
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 their DC10s. Hence, DL could have followed the same path: it is not true that without the 764 DL would have automatically chosen the A332 and then the A350, as was implied in the post I was replying to.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8244 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 50):
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.

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 evidence enough to me to support that supposition. And then when DL adds to that order down the road...

[Edited 2013-01-05 17:42:06]

User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8178 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
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 evidence enough to me to support that supposition.

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 ordered the 787 even after operating the 332. So there was no need for the 764 to prevent DL from defecting forever to Airbus.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8103 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 52):
it is not true that without the 764 DL would have automatically chosen the A332

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 764 the odds are that they would have chosen the A330 like everyone else.
By that time DL had seen EA's use of the A300 and the rest of the world were already buying A330's to replace 767-300ER's so it would have been a good bet that without the 764 the A330 would have been at DL.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7874 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 52):
it is not true that without the 764 DL would have automatically chosen the A332

That was not my complete sentence, which was

Quoting UALWN (Reply 52):
it is not true that without the 764 DL would have automatically chosen the A332 and then the A350,

My point was that it was not a given that DL would have gone from the A330 to the A350: NW (hence DL!) went from the A330 to the 787.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7823 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 56):
My point was that it was not a given that DL would have gone from the A330 to the A350: NW (hence DL!) went from the A330 to the 787.

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 A350 and how things between the two would shake out. Boeing just wanted to minimize the possibility of DL choosing Airbus is the future as much as possible.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2792 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7710 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 57):
Boeing just wanted to minimize the possibility of DL choosing Airbus is the future as much as possible.

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 strategy with the 764. I don't think that's necessarily the case.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7537 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 56):
My point was that it was not a given

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 "definate" words, I try to work with what I think is the intent versus the actual words.
An example based on the quote below:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 54):
Especially after DL decided to defer their 787s to the next decade.
Quoting UALWN (Reply 52):
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 their DC10s

Which makes a pretty interesting debate, DL was the last carrier operating the L1011 in the USA, long after others had gone to the 777, if not for the ground incident they may have continued to operate the small fleet, obviousy they were not enamoured with the 777, even today their fleet is small.
So another safe bet could have been A330's for the L1011's then 787's or A350's, hindsight of course.


User currently onlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2189 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7489 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 59):
Which makes a pretty interesting debate, DL was the last carrier operating the L1011 in the USA, long after others had gone to the 777, if not for the ground incident they may have continued to operate the small fleet, obviousy they were not enamoured with the 777, even today their fleet is small.

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 originally ordered 10 with options for 50 more, so they obviously were expecting it to be a major part of their fleet.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7487 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 54):
Quoting par13del (Reply 55):

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 330 if DL was looking for an international route replacement. The Boeing Exclusivity agreement was still in place, and even after it was killed, DL didn't receive and airbus until the merger.

I think DL would have eventually ordered 787s on their own. They are so reliant on the 763 and 764. With the MAX, no replacement aircraft was on the horizon anytime soon. They would have ordered some simply because the 763s are 20 or more years old. The 788 has better economics than the 330, and before the NW merger they didn't operate the 330 or any Airbus. They would have kept going Boeing, especially with the common 777/787 type rating. It would have taken a while, but they would have bought some.

By 3 class seating capacity:
The 767-300 competed with the A300/310 and a little bit the A330-200
The 787-8 and 767-400 compete with the A330-200 (and the 340-200)
The 787-9 competes with the A350-800, and to an extent the A330-300 (and the 340-300)
The 777-200 competes with the A330-300 and A350-900 (and the 340-300 and 500)
The 777-300 competes with the A350-1000 (and the 340-600)

In Y:
The 767 is configured 2-3-2, 7 abreast
The A300/310/330/340 is configured 8 abreast (only a very very few carriers operate it 9 abreast or the 767 8-abreast)
The 787 is configured either 8 or 9 abreast
The 777 is configured either 9 abreast or 10 abreast
The A350 is configured *tentatively* 9 abreast


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7507 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 6):
Many here say that the 788 will cover this gap too, or a super stretched A321/739.

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 oddball and a subpar aircraft.

NS


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5920 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 62):
Also on this whole 764 nonsense - the only advantage it has is that you can park it more places. Otherwise its an oddball and a subpar aircraft.

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 doesn't need extra range it's a perfect aircraft. And common with the 767 for airlines for which that was an advantage.

These advantages weren't enough for it to compete effectively in the marketplace though.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19724 posts, RR: 58
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5805 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 2):
The 787 burns 20% less fuel

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.


User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5740 times:

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 category. Hence I doubt that either A or B will compromise the latter in order to achieve the former. There are several airlines for whom such a 4000nm/200pax medium sized aircraft would provide the 'sweet-spot' but none of those airlines are either big enough or rich enough to push the manufacturers into doing it.


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5560 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 65):

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 currently fly is quite short routes TATL etc The 788 and the A358 are optimized to do much longer routes.

When A and B do the NSA generation they can design some growth into the design but leave the stuff that would make the 500nm frames too heavy out.

They no longer have to cover the 100-150 seat market, the smallest model will be the 738/A320 size(150-160-190 seats). I see the trend of bigger NBs from the duopoly and with modern materials they might get a bigger frame even lighter than the smaller current NBs. The current NBs are not really good above 210 seats or below 150 seats, there are better options in the market or will be soon. The CS300 will be a lot more popular than the A319neo in that seat range I am sure, there are none orders for the 7-MAX.

So A+B has left that segment in 15 years time, however, a size class above the A321 and 739 is vacant, the 757s/767s and other older competitors will be gone mostly by then, the A330 seems getting even more tuned for range with time. So there is some room to grow a third model of the NSA generation of NB upwards if they see the market for it. But to recoup the cost it would have to build on the NSA generation as far as possible, but having more mojo compared to the smaller brothers. The segment or niche would probably be between 3000 and 5000nm and 210-230 seats?!

How do you cram that many seats in a NB without doing a 753? Well maybe by going wider for the future NB, short and stubby for the base models? One stretched model for the segment where older gear fly today, still more efficient than abusing a A358 or a 788.

Its just speculation, we don't know much about the market in 15 years..


User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5478 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 61):
The 333 was/is way too much plane to replace the L-1011s. They would most likely have gone with the 763.

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 why were they looking for a new a/c, simply order more 763's.
Hence I think they would have looked at the A330 - which was already larger than the 763 and had more range - as well as the 777 which had even more range. I'm not saying they would buy, but due diligence would mandate that they look and based on what was known then, A330's would have been an option.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 61):
The Boeing Exclusivity agreement was still in place,
Quoting Polot (Reply 60):
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.

And people have the heart to comment on this website that airlines when purchasing a/c do not use politicis, it is all about the merits of the a/c, price and services provided by the OEM, go figure 


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 64):
Quoting CM (Reply 2):
The 787 burns 20% less fuel

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.

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 787 will burn less trip fuel than the 767. The 767's lighter structure will give it a trip fuel advantage on shorter missions.

Tom.


User currently onlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 69, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5227 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 64):
The 787 actually burns more fuel per trip,

The data in Reply 29 does not suggest that.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 68):
The 767's lighter structure will give it a trip fuel advantage on shorter missions.

Based on a 30t payload, 700nm range, the 788 burns 7.844t and the 767-300ER with winglets, 7.819t. This gives some idea where the cross over is at.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4724 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 64):
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 69):

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 arrangements). The 788 burns generally less fuel on missions, especially intercontinental. The 763 has an advantage on short stage lengths simply because it is lighter. It also carriers 20-25 less people. But CF6s are crap compared to GEnx/Trent 1000s.

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):

DL wanted an aircraft larger than the 763, with good fuel burn, that could fit in smaller gates than a 330. The 332 hadn't even flown yet in 1996, when DL was scouting the market. They had an exclusivity agreement with Boeing, and they didn't want a shrink because it wouldn't have better fuel burn. The 332 had a MTOW of 510,000 lbs, with a wingspan of 197'. The 764 has a MTOW of 450k, and a wingspan of 170 feet. The 764 EIS was 2 years later than the 332, but the 764 had only 2 customers. DL could get theirs at the start and buy more. Also, at the time they operated the 767 already. Because of the exclusivity agreement, they probably got a good discount. The 764 has a lower CASM. That is why DL got the 764.


User currently onlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4988 posts, RR: 5
Reply 71, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4457 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 70):
The 763 has an advantage on short stage lengths simply because it is lighter. It also carriers 20-25 less people.

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 788 242 seats and for the 767-300ER 238 seats . Very little in it.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

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.

Total agreement there. The 767's seating arrangement is by far the best. Airy cabin feel with nice wide seats.


User currently onlineliftsifter From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4223 times:

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 a long while before we see availability on the 787 line open up.


A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B738 B744 B763 B772 B77W B787 Q400 E190
User currently onlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2898 posts, RR: 9
Reply 74, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4127 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 2):

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 bit Delta focused.

It is very true, the way an airline decks out an older ac can be deceiving, and thus the inspiration of my curiosity, the fact that United had made the interior of the 767-4 so comfortable, pleasing to the eye, clean and brand new (I liked the tube better than an A330) and it all got me thinking. I felt how nice the ride to Rio was, but given this somewhat old 767 was, what was going on outside? It is such a HUGE 767, walking to the back makes you realize how big she actually is. Was it making money for United? What are the gap/s between this 764 and the 787? What are these wings with the raked wing tips and these engines x a full pax load delivering? Why just 37 ever made? Why didnt PMUA order them? Or even BA etc? I am a sky warrior and I love to compare every detail of every ac type from a host of different carriers. A 747 will always be my favorite plane to fly in, but given I am rarely on one these days, I spend my life on a straight tube with a flat bulkhead in front: 757's, 767's, A330's, A340's, and 777's. Still a TAM 777 is quite a different feeling than a United 777.

So thanks for helping me "get it" and I'm sure, eventually when I am on a 787 most of the time my great feeling on a 764 will be easily replaced. What I will miss very much is First Class. As much as I like the BF seat, UA Global First will be sorely missed.



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4006 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 71):

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.

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 73):

Only if they needed a slightly cheaper or smaller plane fast, or need bulk fast. Also, the used 767 market would be a way to go for many airlines. You can easily find late 90s 763s.

The other usage would be for a freighter. UPS still has some new 767s on order, and the KC-46 Tanker still needs to finish. After that, the 767 production line is history.

To sum up, the 788 is a newer and more fuel effiecient aircraft. It is slightly heavier, so it doesn't have much of an advantage on short stage lengths. It is faster to get a 767 currently than a 787, and there is no current 787F.


User currently offlinewarren747sp From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

So it can fly LAX-NRT???
I believes the 764 lives on as the US Air Force Tanker now!



747SP
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 77, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

A 764 can't fly LAX-NRT with an appreciable load, and no, the US Air Force Tanker is a 767-200.

NS


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

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 reality, it will have a fairly large payload penalty and use a lot of fuel. Especially against the wind.

The Air Force Tanker, the KC-46, is a 762-based fuselage, with 787 cockpit displays, and un upgrades version of the KC-10 boom.


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 Initial Performance And Reliability posted Fri Feb 24 2012 04:45:42 by dtwpilot225
Is The 787-9 The New 777-200ER? posted Thu Sep 30 2010 23:16:57 by OyKIE
The 787 The Most Heavily Subsidised Aircraft? posted Fri Aug 14 2009 13:00:22 by Olle
Question About The Performance Of NYC Shuttles posted Wed Jul 16 2008 13:44:10 by B752OS
Why Is There A Gap Between The 787-3 And 787-8? posted Tue Sep 19 2006 05:00:13 by JAM747
Filling The 767-787 Time Gap, Boeing Strategy posted Wed Mar 16 2005 13:15:15 by Keesje
What Airlines Fly The 787 To IAD posted Fri Dec 28 2012 13:27:37 by rjm777ual
Ongoing Manufacturing Issues With The 787 posted Wed Dec 12 2012 03:23:52 by worldrider
NYT: Test Flying The 787 posted Thu Dec 6 2012 00:36:10 by klwright69
Less Turbulence On The 787? posted Wed Dec 5 2012 15:55:50 by NDiesel