hjulicher
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:26 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:07 pm

I was wondering whether the B783 could revolutionize the TATL market from the Eastern US to Europe like the 757 has. I checked Boeing's website, and it lists the 783 with a range of 3050 (max) Nm. It seems that with a little bit of tweaking, airlines could use the 783 for routes to Europe, while maintaining wide body service yet carrying large numbers of passengers across to the Atlantic. Furthermore, if airlines opted for mixed 787 fleets, I think that this aircraft could soon become one of the most preferred aircrafts for trans-oceanic flying, while keeping fleet compatibility.

Do you think that the 783 will catch on like the 757 has, and will the 783 be feasible as a TATL 757 replacement?


-----


This is slightly related, but NW's TATL 757s are numbered like 75A, 75B, 75C, etc. Do you think that each aircraft will be configured differently. The reason I'm asking is because on a ticket that i just booked, one flight (DTW-AMS) is operated by a 75A, and the return (DUS-DTW) is operated by a 75C. Just wondering if anybody knew what the difference was. Thanks.
LH 442
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:13 pm

I think the B783 is a completely pointless airframe, and nobody but the two major Japanese carriers and possibly AA.

3050 nm is completely insufficient for reliable Transatlantic services.

NS
 
iahflyer
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 11:34 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:19 pm

Quoting Hjulicher (Thread starter):
TATL

What does this phrase mean?

Overall though not a bad idea, BOS-LHR would not work with its range of 3265NM(GCM), and 783 capabilities of 3050NM. With that being the closet big city pair I can think of, its a no go situation. Although now I think about it, MAN-BOS possibly?
Little airports with the big jets are the best!! Floyd
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:21 pm

The 783 will likely do well in short hop useage, and for airlines that have A300 but no gates for full wingspan 787.

Though I think most airlines will pick up all 787-8 unless they are gate width limited on alot of airports since a all 787-8 fleet is more flexible than a mixed 787-3/787-8
 
hjulicher
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:26 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:26 pm

TATL = Trans ATLantic

Couldn't airline/Boeing modify the airframe slightly sot that it would have a little bit more range. With so many passengers, I think it would be useful for flights in/out of Europe. Most airlines (at this point) are planning to implement the B788 on flights to/from US to Asia.
LH 442
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:28 pm

I actually think the 789 will eventually be the best-selling member of the family. The 783 is a niche aricraft for the ultra-high density market in Japan. The might also sell some in China for the same purpose but I don't see any at all being sold in Europe or N. America.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:29 pm

Why not build a shorter 787 based on the lightened 787-3 and use that version to replace the 757 on thin transatlantic routes?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:29 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
I think the B783 is a completely pointless airframe, and nobody but the two major Japanese carriers and possibly AA.

Maybe for the airline you own and operate, it isn't the best choice. But since at least two carriers have ordered it, obviously they think they can make money operating it.

What was the name of your airline again???  mischievous 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:30 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
I think the B783 is a completely pointless airframe, and nobody but the two major Japanese carriers and possibly AA.

ANA and JAL are the people Boeing intended the 787-3 for. Kind of like the 767-400 for DL and CO.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 3):
Though I think most airlines will pick up all 787-8 unless they are gate width limited on alot of airports since a all 787-8 fleet is more flexible than a mixed 787-3/787-8

Funny thing, American's expensive brand new terminal at JFK can not handle even a 767-300ER with winglets (they can handle it, but only in 777 designated gates). Apparently, the overpaid designers did not consider American would one day order newer, larger aircraft.

The 787-3 exceeds the 767's wingspan by approximately 14 feet. So, even if American buys the 787-3, they will have to demolish and reconfigure the gates at their new terminal.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:37 pm

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 6):
Why not build a shorter 787 based on the lightened 787-3 and use that version to replace the 757 on thin transatlantic routes?

Because "shrinks" of airliners have never worked well. The reason is the structural requirements become a disadvantage in that the plane's weight loss and range gain aren't proportional to the loss of seats. This might become more possible going forward though, since composite fuselages allow for custom thicknesses. We'll see...  

[Edited 2007-05-02 05:39:59]
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:42 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7):
But since at least two carriers have ordered it, obviously they think they can make money operating it.

Right. JAL, and ANA. As I mentioned.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 8):
The 787-3 exceeds the 767's wingspan by approximately 14 feet. So, even if American buys the 787-3, they will have to demolish and reconfigure the gates at their new terminal.

I think AA will buy it... but they will base it primarily at MIA.

Surely THAT multibillion dollar boondoggle can accomodate it.  Smile

NS
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:45 pm

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 9):
Because "shrinks" of airliners have never worked well. The reason is the structural requirements become a disadvantage in that the plane's weight loss and range gain aren't proportional to the loss of seats. This might become more possible going forward though, since composite fuselages allow for custom thicknesses. We'll see...  

The 787-3 already uses thinner walls than the 787-8; plus it has lighter landing gear. Why did Boeing leave a place for two model numbers below the 787-3?
 
atlantaflyboy
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:45 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:45 pm

If Boeing's recent history w/ projected range figures on the 777 program prove to be relevant in the 787 program as well, we may see some additional mileage out of the 787-3 once it takes to the skies. It could therefore replace ageing 757's on some routes from NYC/BOS to far western UK/Europe, especially in low headwind summer conditions when additional lift is needed.

I do see a future for the 787-3 in the fleets of AA and DL in the US domestic market. AA could use them for 3 class trans-con service to replace 767's and to the Caribbean from NY/MIA replacing A300's. DL is almost a no brainer to use them for the replacement of domestic 767-300's.

The 787-3 would also be an excellent choice to operate from the Western US to Hawaii markets - good cargo lift, low CASM and an ability to carry lots of bums in seats.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:47 pm

Quoting Atlantaflyboy (Reply 12):
It could therefore replace ageing 757's on some routes from NYC/BOS to far western UK/Europe, especially in low headwind summer conditions when additional lift is needed.

Its a 300 seat airplane.

300 seats.

NS
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:49 pm

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 11):
The 787-3 already uses thinner walls than the 787-8; plus it has lighter landing gear.

Sure, but there's a limit to "how low they can go". I imagine you'll see something like what you're talking about with Y1. Boeing says it will be a family just like the 787 and will include a 757 replacement. Granted, it's got big shoes to fill, but I think they'll pull it off.  Smile

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 11):
Why did Boeing leave a place for two model numbers below the 787-3?

You'd have to ask the marketing boys and girls in Chicago.  Wink
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
atlantaflyboy
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:45 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:53 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 13):

This is why I said "some routes" - DL especially has been operating aircraft in this seat count range to Europe the last few years, on a seasonal basis, quite successfully using domestic configured 767's (both300's and 400's). There are markets that also currently being operated using 757's that could use additional lift and the low CASM and increased cargo capacity of the 787 comparable to the 757 could provide this to airlines at a cost structure that might make the additional seat count worth the risk.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 12:56 pm

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 6):
Why not build a shorter 787 based on the lightened 787-3 and use that version to replace the 757 on thin transatlantic routes?

Someone here posted that the 787-8 will have the same trip cost as a 757-300. I don't believe the short term costs will be that good, but lifetime costs may make the trip cost that low overall. (Y lifetime cost / X lifetime flights) The 787-3 isn't as much about reducing the costs for short haul, but making the shorter wingspan as high performing as possible. Oh and lowering the MTOW since short haul ops the MTOW does drive costs as Japan's airports have huge landing fees.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 1:13 pm

I think the 783 is a great aircraft.

It flies 300 people 3000miles and at MTOW weighs 54T less than the 788 MTOW.

That is to big enough difference for airlines not order based on commanality.

Also, the MTOW can be tweaked to give whatever range you want.

Ruscoe
 
dank
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 1:29 pm

Quoting Atlantaflyboy (Reply 15):
This is why I said "some routes" - DL especially has been operating aircraft in this seat count range to Europe the last few years, on a seasonal basis, quite successfully using domestic configured 767's (both300's and 400's). There are markets that also currently being operated using 757's that could use additional lift and the low CASM and increased cargo capacity of the 787 comparable to the 757 could provide this to airlines at a cost structure that might make the additional seat count worth the risk.

Why do it with a 783 when you could do it with a 788? The cabin size is identical. The 783 makes a huge sacrifice in performance to decrease the wingspan and weight. It won't carry the cargo that a -8 will carry over transatlantic range even if they could squeeze out a bit more range. Even the 764 (for all its deficiencies) has much better range than the 783. The 788 and 789 are going to be doing these east coast - europe runs for many of the us carriers. Now, when Y1 eventually rolls around (and the 320RS), you may see some variant of those doing what the 752 now does transatlantic...

Quoting Atlantaflyboy (Reply 12):
The 787-3 would also be an excellent choice to operate from the Western US to Hawaii markets - good cargo lift, low CASM and an ability to carry lots of bums in seats.

It would? Isn't LAX to HNL is pushing the range and the -3? and it is cargo limited if you want to stretch the range. The question for carriers is, is it better to have a small fleet of -3s that can only be used for a few routes, or are you better off with a plane that you can swap configurations if you have a shift in operations (I'd fully expect airlines like DL to have domestic and international configurations on the same model, but you would be able to reconfigure planes if your needs changed).

cheers.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 1:35 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 8):
The 787-3 exceeds the 767's wingspan by approximately 14 feet. So, even if American buys the 787-3, they will have to demolish and reconfigure the gates at their new terminal.

The 767 gates are ADG-IV gates. The 787-3 is an ADG-IV aircraft. There is no difference in gate span. 197' is 197'. If the airport was dumb enough to build aircraft specific gates that's their own damn fault. Even if they failed to address this issue, the use of a -8 or -9 won't make things any better.

As airports become more congested domestically and hub balancing demands larger aircraft to maximize connection opportunities, the 787-3 will become a more viable alternative for growing high density routes currently served by 757's, 767's and even some 777's. It has enough range for all large hub CONUS markets to each domestic fortress hub. It could easily be deployed and woudl be economically viable from the fortress hubs to the following airports:

Atlanta (Hub Hopper)
Boston (Hub Hopper/Transcon)
Chicago (Hub Hopper/West Coast/NY/BOS/DC)
Cincinnati (Hub Hopper)
Dallas/Ft. Worth (Hub Hopper)
Denver (Hub Hopper/East Coast)
Houston/Bush (Hub Hopper/East and West Coast)
Las Vegas (Name it)
Los Angeles (Hub Hopper/Transcon/Hawaii)
Miami (Hub Hopper/Transcon)
Minneapolis (West Coast/NY/BOS/DC)
New York (including La Guardia)
Orlando (ATL/CVG/ORD/BOS/NY/DC/DFW)
Salt Lake City (West Coast/East Coast/Hub Hopper)
San Diego (Fortress Hubs/Transcon/Hawaii)
San Francisco (Fortress Hubs/Transcon/Hawaii)
Seattle (Fortress Hubs/Transcon)
Washington/Dulles (Transcons/Orlando)
Washington/Reagan (Fortress Hubs)

[Edited 2007-05-02 06:49:35]
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 2:06 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 18):
Why do it with a 783 when you could do it with a 788? The cabin size is identical. The 783 makes a huge sacrifice in performance to decrease the wingspan and weight

Why doesn't UA fly the 772LR to Hawaii? Because they don't need that much aircraft. The cumulative effects of lower acquisition cost, lower fuel burn, lower landing fees, and less maintenance over the life of an aircraft add-up big time if the 787-3 is the right aircraft for the job, and the alternative is abusing a 787-8. This is especially true for airlines looking to replace large fleets of medium-haul widebodies like AA with the A300.

Quoting Dank (Reply 18):
Isn't LAX to HNL is pushing the range and the -3?

It's well within the range of the 787-3 with full passenger load.
 
dank
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 2:43 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 20):
It's well within the range of the 787-3 with full passenger load.

Great circle mapper has LAX - HNL at 2,221nm. Range of the 787-3 is 2,500-3,00-nm and you're not going to carry a ton of cargo that way. Not sure that I'd call that a great choice.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 20):
Why doesn't UA fly the 772LR to Hawaii? Because they don't need that much aircraft. The cumulative effects of lower acquisition cost, lower fuel burn, lower landing fees, and less maintenance over the life of an aircraft add-up big time if the 787-3 is the right aircraft for the job, and the alternative is abusing a 787-8. This is especially true for airlines looking to replace large fleets of medium-haul widebodies like AA with the A300.

Umm, it would help your comparison if the 772 (and ER) were pushing their range/payload on the route. I don't doubt that the 783 is a better choice if it is the right plane for the job. But I think we disagree about how often that is the case for the 783. I wouldn't be shocked either way if AA gets some for their Miami A300 routes. I'm not confident that they'll see many more sales than that.

cheers.
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2084
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 3:08 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 19):
The 767 gates are ADG-IV gates. The 787-3 is an ADG-IV aircraft. There is no difference in gate span. 197' is 197'. If the airport was dumb enough to build aircraft specific gates that's their own damn fault. Even if they failed to address this issue, the use of a -8 or -9 won't make things any better.

Well, AA is dumb enough to build 737-300ER only gates at their new terminal.

Just out of curiosity, what are the different classification of gates? You mention ADG-IV as one of them? (I did a search, could not find anything)
 
jonathan-l
Posts: 394
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 4:20 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 5:17 pm

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 9):
Because "shrinks" of airliners have never worked well

The A319 is an A320 shrink and it's one of the best of the family.
The A330-200 is an A330-300 shrink and same there.
But I agree, you can only scale down to a certain extent.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 8:44 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 10):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 8):
The 787-3 exceeds the 767's wingspan by approximately 14 feet. So, even if American buys the 787-3, they will have to demolish and reconfigure the gates at their new terminal.

I think AA will buy it... but they will base it primarily at MIA.

Surely THAT multibillion dollar boondoggle can accommodate it.

MIA might be a boondoggle, but consider the advantages. Since this airport reconstruction project will never be complete, they will easily be able to make adjustments for future changes in airline fleet sizes.  stirthepot 

The sooner AA replaces those ragged A300's on the south america runs, the better.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 9:15 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 19):
New York (including La Guardia)
Washington/Reagan (Fortress Hubs)

Interesting. I was wondering if the 783 could operate from those aiports. I thought maybe the shortened wings would comprimise perfermance so much that it wouldn't be vialble from those their short runways.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 9:27 pm

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 5):
I don't see any at all being sold in Europe or N. America.

You will see 787-3 replacing 767 on US Transcon flights (JFK-LAX, ORD-LAX, BOS-SFO, etc) when the legacy carriers begin to order the type.

Europe is doubtfull, although there are some possibilities where it may prove usefull.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 22):
Well, AA is dumb enough to build 737-300ER only gates at their new terminal.

Did Boeing launch a new type or something?

Quoting Atlantaflyboy (Reply 12):
I do see a future for the 787-3 in the fleets of AA and DL in the US domestic market. AA could use them for 3 class trans-con service to replace 767's and to the Caribbean from NY/MIA replacing A300's. DL is almost a no brainer to use them for the replacement of domestic 767-300's.

 checkmark  Agreed. This is the same point I was making above.
One Nation Under God
 
DAL767400ER
Posts: 5084
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:47 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 9:28 pm

Quoting IAHFLYER (Reply 2):
Overall though not a bad idea, BOS-LHR would not work with its range of 3265NM(GCM), and 783 capabilities of 3050NM

That's 3265MI, not 3265NM. BOS-LHR is actually just 2837NM.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 22):
Well, AA is dumb enough to build 737-300ER only gates at their new terminal.

Were you referring to 767-300ERs?
 
airbazar
Posts: 6798
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 9:39 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 18):
Why do it with a 783 when you could do it with a 788? The cabin size is identical. The 783 makes a huge sacrifice in performance to decrease the wingspan and weight. It won't carry the cargo that a -8 will carry over transatlantic range even if they could squeeze out a bit more range.

I'm glad someone asked. Why go through all the trouble of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole when the 788 can do the job? The purpose of this aircraft is to offer p2p service from/to secondary markets or increased frequencies in existing markets. With open skies between Europe and the US now almost a reality, the 788 fits perfectly. Ok, probably still a bit too heavy for those secondary markets but hey, it has to be better than cannibalizing the operating yields of a 783.
 
DiscoverCSG
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:22 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 11:01 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 19):
Las Vegas (Name it)

How 'bout, "The SlotBuster Express"

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 19):
Washington/Reagan (Fortress Hubs)

While another poster asked if the 783 could take off from DCA, I have to ask: Can it park there?

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 26):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 22):
Well, AA is dumb enough to build 737-300ER only gates at their new terminal.

Did Boeing launch a new type or something?

Yeah. I think they removed the landing gear to decrease weight and increase range.  Big grin
 
HiJazzey
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:00 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 11:12 pm

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 22):
Just out of curiosity, what are the different classification of gates? You mention ADG-IV as one of them? (I did a search, could not find anything)

Here you go:

ICAO / (FAA) design groups:

Code A / (Group I) : <15m wingspan (49') ; <4.5m maing gear wheelspan
Code B / (Group II) : 15-24m (49-79') ; 4.5-6m
Code C / (Group III) : 24-36m (79-118') ; 6-9m
Code D / (Group IV) : 36-52m (118-171') ; 9-14m
Code E / (Group V) : 52-65m (171-214') ; 9-14m
Code F / (Group VI): 65-80m (214-282') ; 14-16m
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 11:22 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 24):
reconstruction project will never

I guess I'll have to live with the leaking roof for a few more years yet.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 24):
those ragged A300's

OT, but I am pretty loyal to AA and have had a lot of in flight conversations with the crew. They almost all HATE the A300, I thought it odd tha the F/As would slam their product calling it the "Scarebus" to a biz pax. I thought it was ok, yea, the interiors are getting ragged.

MIA IMHO may be a good place to base a few 783s. I'll have to look at the God's Eye Great Circle and see where San Pedro Sula (Honduras), Port of Spain (Trini) fit. Mexico City also comes to mind, plus all of the glowing white legged snowbirds coming in for a few weeks to SoBe.

When Miami to Havana becomes possible, decrease the range by 3000nm and add 150 more PAX.  Smile
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Wed May 02, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting Dank (Reply 21):
Great circle mapper has LAX - HNL at 2,221nm. Range of the 787-3 is 2,500-3,00-nm and you're not going to carry a ton of cargo that way. Not sure that I'd call that a great choice.

And how much cargo do you think airlines are loading on HNL runs?

Quoting Dank (Reply 21):
Umm, it would help your comparison if the 772 (and ER) were pushing their range/payload on the route.

Doesn't change the analogy at all. The 772LR is way too much airplane for west coast-HNL runs, and so is the 787-8.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:10 am

One needs to remember that at MNZFW, a 787-3 can only tank enough gas to fly about 1500nm. That's plenty to service the Japanese home islands and maybe make the jump across the Sea of Japan to Korea and China from NRT and HND, but it's going to be inadequate to do most US mid-cons, to say nothing of Hawai'i or trans-Atlantic services.

And while a 787-3 has a 54,000lb lower MTOW, her OEW is only about 20,000lbs less. Now that's not insignificant, but considering how much more the 787-8 can do, even at TOWs well below maximum, I just can't see a home for the 787-3 outside of the Japanese, Chinese, and Indian home markets. It might also do okay on the Aussie home market, depending on how much traffic flies between the west and east coasts.
 
dank
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:14 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 32):
Doesn't change the analogy at all. The 772LR is way too much airplane for west coast-HNL runs, and so is the 787-8.

No it does, because you are looking at half of the comparison, not the entire comparison. The 772A and 772ER are well above capable for doing the route. The 783 isn't. I very much doubt any airline is going to do buy 783s to do the Hawaii runs and they sure the hell aren't going to do it for trans-atlantic runs.



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 32):
And how much cargo do you think airlines are loading on HNL runs?

I would bet more than what the 783 could do at full pax load at near 2500nm. Some of the airlines doing HNL (like US) probably would like to put more of a plane on the route so that they could expand the revenue, but they don't have the planes to do it).

cheers.

[Edited 2007-05-02 17:17:31]
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:19 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 32):
Doesn't change the analogy at all. The 772LR is way too much airplane for west coast-HNL runs, and so is the 787-8.

...just like the 772ER is too much aircraft for SIN-India, or the 773ER for CDG-BEY--- but the carriers have chosen to op those type routes with those type aircraft in exchange for the market flexibility and potential resale they offer.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
dank
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:25 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 33):
One needs to remember that at MNZFW, a 787-3 can only tank enough gas to fly about 1500nm. That's plenty to service the Japanese home islands and maybe make the jump across the Sea of Japan to Korea and China from NRT and HND, but it's going to be inadequate to do most US mid-cons, to say nothing of Hawai'i or trans-Atlantic services.

And while a 787-3 has a 54,000lb lower MTOW, her OEW is only about 20,000lbs less. Now that's not insignificant, but considering how much more the 787-8 can do, even at TOWs well below maximum, I just can't see a home for the 787-3 outside of the Japanese, Chinese, and Indian home markets. It might also do okay on the Aussie home market, depending on how much traffic flies between the west and east coasts.

 checkmark  couldn't say that better. Widebodyphotog's charts are an eyeopener. Even though MTOW is some 50+ tons lower on the 783, MZFW and OEW are something on the order of 4-8t lower. One of the problems of looking at MTOW alone is that it assumes that you are actually going to fly the 788 at MTOW to do PHL-FRA, say.

The 783 was a compromise in design to max the return on investment. And it will serve NH and JL's needs well.

cheers.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
I think the B783 is a completely pointless airframe, and nobody but the two major Japanese carriers and possibly AA.

Not to mention Lufthansa.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:28 am

If you load the 783 with its full payload (full pax + full cargo), the range becomes almost completely useless.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
dank
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:29 am

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 35):
...just like the 772ER is too much aircraft for SIN-India, or the 773ER for CDG-BEY--- but the carriers have chosen to op those type routes with those type aircraft in exchange for the market flexibility and potential resale they offer.

 checkmark  Meant to add something to that effect.

cheers.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:31 am

Quoting Hjulicher (Thread starter):
I was wondering whether the B783 could revolutionize the TATL market from the Eastern US to Europe like the 757 has.

It will, If you dont mind swimming half of the journey.
 
dank
Posts: 925
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:35 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:33 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Not to mention Lufthansa.

It's not entirely clear to me that LH is going to go down that route.

cheers.
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:36 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
I think the B783 is a completely pointless airframe, and nobody but the two major Japanese carriers and possibly AA.

Not to mention Lufthansa.

I dont think LH will. They are not the only airline operating A300-600s.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 12:38 am

Quoting Dank (Reply 41):
It's not entirely clear to me that LH is going to go down that route.

It would make sense for them to do such given the amount of cargo they carry intra-Europe, not to mention CASM on high capacity works.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 1:21 am

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 9):
Because "shrinks" of airliners have never worked well.



Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 23):
The A319 is an A320 shrink and it's one of the best of the family.
The A330-200 is an A330-300 shrink and same there.
But I agree, you can only scale down to a certain extent.

...but those are two great aircrafts...especially the -200.... Wink
"Up the Irons!"
 
rootsair
Posts: 4012
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:25 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 6):
based on the lightened 787-3

if the 783 is lighter how come it has such a nasty bad range ?

Also mention its a shame we won't see many 783's around...its the nicest looking one with its blended winglets ......
 airplane   wave 
A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting RootsAir (Reply 45):
if the 783 is lighter how come it has such a nasty bad range ?

Boeing took out structural weight at the expense of MTOW and strength. The fuel tanks hold just as much fuel as 787-8, but the structure isn't strong enough to lift the 787-8's MTOW. The landing gear is also lighter, so it can't handle high take off or landing weights of the 787-8.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6166
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 2:52 am

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 5):
I don't see any at all being sold in Europe or N. America.

Like Gigneil mentioned, AA could get some and base them at MIA. There are lots of passengers between Latin American cities and MIA, and the bellies of planes flying these routes are always full. The 783 would be a good replacement for the A300.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 43):
amount of cargo they carry intra-Europe, not to mention CASM on high capacity works.

There are several intra-Europe flights for which LH uses the A300. Similarly, BA uses 763s for some LHR-European cities routes. I am sure LH could benefit from the 783.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
DiscoverCSG
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:22 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 40):
Quoting Hjulicher (Thread starter):
I was wondering whether the B783 could revolutionize the TATL market from the Eastern US to Europe like the 757 has.

It will, If you dont mind swimming half of the journey.

That WOULD be revolutionary, now, wouldn't it?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Trans-Atlantic With The B783

Thu May 03, 2007 2:56 am

Quoting RootsAir (Reply 45):
if the 783 is lighter how come it has such a nasty bad range?

While the 787-3 has the same tankage by volume as the 787-8, it cannot be filled to that level because of a lighter overall structure. So the 787-3 can only be filled to about 1/3rd the level a 787-8 can, and therefore takes a significant range penalty.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, Cipango, GloomyDe, Heavierthanair, rutankrd, seahawk, SpoonNZ, tonystan, VapourTrails, vv701 and 284 guests