Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax  
User currently offlinehiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 3
Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6646 times:

UA just announced ORDSNN with a summer only 757-200. Last couple years sco/sua had quite a few Canada fuel stops on returns from Europe...and UA is starting to take 787's.

So...on a cost per mile/fight basis....what would cost UA less roundtrip ORDSNN for 175 pax average...757 or 787...1980's tech vs 2000's tech. Just how far improved is the 787...does it beat the 767's sibling?

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4052 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6534 times:

But you are comparing to the wrong aircraft. The B787-800 is larger than a B767-300. so it is miles bigger ythan a B757-200.
I have seen the seat layout in our B788, and with the same seat layout they are carrying about 20 seats more than the B763 that they replace.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26025 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6522 times:

Not just the size, but cabin configurations and revenue mix are different.

The UA 787 is a premium heavy aircraft - 36 lie-flat seats. The 757 only has 16 front end seats.

SNN is hardly a market that needs premium heavy configuration as its a summer seasonal leisure route.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hiflyer (Thread starter):
So...on a cost per mile/fight basis....what would cost UA less roundtrip ORDSNN for 175 pax average...757 or 787...1980's tech vs 2000's tech. Just how far improved is the 787...does it beat the 767's sibling?

Per Piano-X, on domestic Japanese missions the 757-300 is significantly more fuel efficient than the 787-8 on a trip fuel basis, but Tokyo-Osaka is a significantly shorter stage-length than Shannon-Chicago.  


User currently offlinehiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2177 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6270 times:

Thanks for the answers...and suggestions. Just looking at what would be more cost effective to move 175 pax north atlantic average basis. Yes the 788 has more lie flat but it is only a two class not three for most carriers. It was billed as the replacement for the 763 which carriers are still dragging across the atlantic in big numbers now but my interest is whether the 787 numbers are that good to beat the 757 sibling also on a north atlantic romp with the same pax load.

Something has to replace the 757...it is getting old and in some cases 'cranky'. Not seeing 738/9 or 321 stepping in for north atlantic plans among the big networked carriers...Hawaii and transcon yes....which makes the 788 the small long bird from either B or AB for current offers.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6227 times:

Quoting hiflyer (Reply 4):
Something has to replace the 757...it is getting old and in some cases 'cranky'. Not seeing 738/9 or 321 stepping in for north atlantic plans among the big networked carriers...Hawaii and transcon yes....which makes the 788 the small long bird from either B or AB for current offers.

I´ve got a lot of flack for saying the same thing, A or B will do a larger NB model when they replace the current A320/737 aircraft with a new generation. As the trend seems to get larger NBs, the smallest size would be about 738/A320 in the next gen. By doing a base model about the size of the current 739 a smaller about the current 738 model and a third larger member the size of a 752, the 757 would be replaced along with 762/763. 788 will mostly replace the 763er and A332s.

The current NBs are too small to be a decent 757/762 replacement, they are optimized for transcontinental US, going TATL would add a lot of tanks and lower capacity so much that would make TATL inefficient.

Think of the 757/762 niche as a slot between A321/739 for seat capacity and 762er for range. A NB that could seat 210 people and have a max range about 4200-300nm, no payload penalty in the winter. To have a useful place it would need to have about 50% OEW of the 788, the legs to do TATL with 200-210 seats and a fuel burn way below a lightly loaded 788. It will be too much airplane for transcontinental routes and too little for transpacific.

Airbus has this gap when the A332 is EOLed, the A358 is the smallest option above the A321 NB. They would really need something to cover the 788 from below and the current A321 will not be able to do this.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6161 times:

738MAX should end up with higher operating profit than B752 on many of the transatlantic routes within the range of B738MAX. The loss of seat revenue is more than offset by savings in fuel cost. I don't have the numbers handy, but I have posted them in other threads.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6148 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A or B will do a larger NB model when they replace the current A320/737 aircraft with a new generation.

A & B are replacing the A320/737 with a new generation...and they're no bigger than their predecessors.

Tom.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5934 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A or B will do a larger NB model when they replace the current A320/737 aircraft with a new generation.

A & B are replacing the A320/737 with a new generation...and they're no bigger than their predecessors.

But carriers are often ordering larger models, for example WN now acquiring 737-800s instead of -700s, and other carriers ordering -900ERs instead of -800s. Same applies for the A320 family where carriers that once had large A319 fleets are moving to the A320 or A321.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5869 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 7):
A & B are replacing the A320/737 with a new generation...and they're no bigger than their predecessors.

Tom.

So you know the future?   The trend seems like growing NB sizes, the NSA could be a bit larger if the 600 and 700 model does not need to be covered. 738,739 and 7310 lineup for the future IMO. If the shrink is the 738, the base model the 739 and the larger model closer to 752 size the NB market is covered. Below 160 seats is not useful to aim at anymore. Instead there is room for growth upwards with 757 and 762 leaving.

There is a lot of new competition in the 100-150 seat market, none above 739 and up to 788. The way I see it anyway.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5688 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 9):
So you know the future?

No, I know the specs of the A320NEO and the 737MAX. The numbers are all out there.

Tom.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5600 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
No, I know the specs of the A320NEO and the 737MAX. The numbers are all out there.

Tom.

Yeah I was talking NSA/Next gen mostly. They will probably make a ER model with huge tanks to make it across to Ireland with MAX/NEO though.

Thinking far ahead I see a bigger model more in the range of a 752 size model of the NSA gen. This would then cover the upper range of the current 739ER, 757s and 762s. 3-400 sales would be enough? As we see the 7-MAX has none sales and still gets offered.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5445 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 11):
Yeah I was talking NSA/Next gen mostly.

Maybe it's local usage, but I take "NSA" and "Next Generation" to mean opposite things. NSA is a cleansheet. Next gen is an evolution...like the 737NG (NG = Next Generation).

Quoting sweair (Reply 11):
They will probably make a ER model with huge tanks to make it across to Ireland with MAX/NEO though.

They don't have many options for huge tanks...fuel space is basically fixed by the wing and they're not going to do a different wing just for the ER versions. You can always add auxiliary fuel tanks in the cargo bay but that really only makes sense for BBJ missions.

Quoting sweair (Reply 11):
Thinking far ahead I see a bigger model more in the range of a 752 size model of the NSA gen. This would then cover the upper range of the current 739ER, 757s and 762s. 3-400 sales would be enough?

If I were on a board these days, no way would I OK a narrowbody with only 300-400 expected sales.

Tom.


User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16335 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5422 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 5):
A or B will do a larger NB model when they replace the current A320/737 aircraft with a new generation. As the trend seems to get larger NBs, the smallest size would be about 738/A320 in the next gen. By doing a base model about the size of the current 739 a smaller about the current 738 model and a third larger member the size of a 752

I agree. There is also, arguably, room for a 4th stretch...a 753-size NB.

However, given than B is not likely to launch an all-new NB until (say) 2020, for service entry in (say) 2024, I doubt any of the current TA 752 fleet will last that long on TA routes.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2261 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5369 times:

Quoting hiflyer (Reply 4):
Something has to replace the 757...it is getting old and in some cases 'cranky'. Not seeing 738/9 or 321 stepping in for north atlantic plans among the big networked carriers...Hawaii and transcon yes....which makes the 788 the small long bird from either B or AB for current offers.

You don't through seats out of an airplane just to match the capacity of a smaller aircraft. That would be abusing the 787. A 788 with 175 PAX would have worse cost per seat than the A320NEO e.g. at 150 seats. It would probably not even match the cost of the 757....


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5272 times:

Put larger and more efficient wings on the A321neo, more fuel and lift maybe less drag, engines(GTF) in the 40K thrust class.

What would that buy us? A very efficient almost 752? it is certainly big enough? But a new wing would cost a lot of course, this is just fictional by the way.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5180 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
You can always add auxiliary fuel tanks in the cargo bay but that really only makes sense for BBJ missions.

We shall be aware that almost all the range figures we see for the 320neo and 737MAX models are with aux fuel tanks in the cargo bays. I have not tuned my model on the SA to the last 2-3% yet so I don't give a PR chart right now but the A321 is out of fuel somewhere 1000nm shorter then the advertised 3700nm when having only the wingtanks of some 19t. The 737MAX goes a tick further with it's 21t before being out of gas but not much, certainly not the talked of 3600+nm.

So they are all fuel volume limited.



Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5087 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 16):

What do you think about a 752 sized model for the NSA/New airplane in the future? There seems to be no place for anything smaller then 150-160 seats? But how do you combine a larger wing with efficient short haul?


User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5024 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
If I were on a board these days, no way would I OK a narrowbody with only 300-400 expected sales.

I think he meant 300-400 sales for the variant, at least that is how I understood that...



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4951 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 18):

I think he deliberately misunderstands everything I say, must be an engineer to be so narrow minded in thinking? Robots from University..


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4943 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 17):
But how do you combine a larger wing with efficient short haul?

There is nothing direct contrary in a larger wing and short haul. There AFAIK a few things to consider for wing size:

- you need wing area to get a reasonable wingloading for take-off and landing performance (with acceptable high lift complexity) and for cruising at highest possible flight level. The A321neo and 9MAX wingloading (760 and 690) is not higher then the 789 (680) or 77W (775), thus they are fine in this respect for long-range flying (the A321 could do well with a little bit more wing though, it starts it cruise at a low FL270 ).

- the wingspan or actually aspect ratio gives you low induced drag, good for longer range flying. Once again they are fine compared to the ULHs (effective aspect ratios includes effects of wingtip device: 321 11, 900ER 11.6, 789 9.5, 77W 9 ). As can be seen the existing SAs are even better then the ULH frames.

- sweep and profile for cruise Mach. Here the 321/737 looses out but for a TATL the loss of 0.07 Mach can't be the culprit, it means a 0.5 to 0.8 hours longer TATL time, the 757 is in the same speed league as the 321/900ER, ie no difference.


So per the above the only thing that the present frames lack is range which essentially is fuel capacity (if one deems their pax hold area as acceptable ). Here is a good picture from a Boeing 737-700 presentation showing the trade for auxiliary fuel tanks vs luggage space (the 900ER has a 51m3 cargo hold):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/Boeing737ERauxtankandcargopresentation.jpg

Now the normal tankage gives it about 6 hours endurance, we need about 8-9 hours. Each aux fuel tank buys you 0.6 hours so you need to add 3 over the standard 2 for a 900ER for a total of 5. Now for the luggage you need about .13 to .15 m3 per pax, so you maximum need some 23-27m3 for luggage. For the 900ER you take away 16m3 for fuel and you have 35m3 left so you should be fine on baggage.

Now comes the weight check: a realistic 9MAX OEW with a real cabin and catering (see TK weight tables) would be some 48t, add tank 3 to 5 = 0.7t and you can load some 11.5-15t after you put the 25.5-28t fuel in (including reserves) you need for a 8-9 hours TATL.

So for the 9 hours TATL missions you can haul 120 pax, make it 8 hours and you get 150 over the pond. I don't think the 757-200 get so many more transported (some 165), why not start with the existing single aisles before thinking about making a dedicated 757 replacement, they seem quite useful if you accept that it is pax+bags only and no cargo.

[Edited 2012-10-09 12:16:05]


Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4926 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 20):

The idea was from my side, that the NSA and Airbus whatever they call it will grow in size, so the bigger model could be feasible to be of the 752 size. If the base model would be the size of the 739ER and the shrink about the current 737-800.

If the bigger model could sell between 300 and 500 frames maybe it would be worth it? More thrust, bigger tanks and a little bigger wing?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Costs To Lease A 757-200 For 12 Months? posted Fri Nov 4 2011 21:54:24 by JMM99
How Simlar Is 757 Etop To Proposed 757 200LR? posted Wed Mar 3 2010 15:20:12 by 747400sp
757 Vs. 757W: Flying Differences posted Thu Nov 6 2008 21:26:54 by Mariodgf
Economics Of CRJ-900 Vs. Embraer 175 posted Mon Oct 6 2008 07:55:46 by 1337Delta764
757 Vs. MD-90 For The Takeoff Crown? posted Sun Sep 21 2008 17:39:49 by EA772LR
Moving From US To UK For ATC: Possible? posted Tue Mar 11 2008 18:44:40 by PanAm330
Wing Flex, 757 Vs A320 posted Fri Sep 14 2007 04:23:12 by N9JIG
777 Vs. 787 Tailcone Shape posted Tue Jun 26 2007 14:07:16 by Mir
757 Vs 767 posted Tue Oct 17 2006 23:57:59 by Freight400
Lift-to-Drag Ratio Vs. Velocity For An SST...? posted Tue Oct 4 2005 03:36:06 by Lehpron

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format