VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 2187
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:14 am

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!
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:23 am

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.
 
CM
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:17 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:42 am

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)
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:19 am

The seating in the 767 is the best ever, 2-3-2 in economy, no cross section comes close to being this great.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13230
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:08 am

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:39 am

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
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:52 pm

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:17 pm

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 avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:44 pm

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 avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13230
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:48 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 7):
At the end of the day, how the airline chooses to cater to pax inside the a/c is the key for the majority of the travelling public, and in that regard, it really is a crap shoot which the OEM's really do not control.

Agreed, but the VAST majority of 767s have 2-3-2 in economy, and the VAST majority of A300/A330/A340s have 2-4-2 in economy.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:56 pm

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.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:37 pm

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.
 
idlewildchild
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:38 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:39 pm

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.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:49 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:54 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:57 pm

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.
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4459
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:58 pm

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 avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:58 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:05 pm

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 avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:14 pm

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
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3917
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:25 pm

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.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:32 pm

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 avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4920
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:56 pm

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.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:13 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
Flighty
Posts: 7648
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:18 pm

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]
 
pnwtraveler
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:12 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:43 pm

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 avatar
STT757
Posts: 13173
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:52 pm

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 avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:22 pm

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.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:29 pm

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.
 
sunrisevalley
Posts: 4950
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:54 pm

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 avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:03 pm

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.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word, and doesn't even make sense.
 
idlewildchild
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:38 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:20 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:28 pm

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]
 
UALWN
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:38 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:40 pm

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
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:43 pm

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 avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:48 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:06 pm

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 avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:25 pm

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
 
Someone83
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:43 pm

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
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:50 pm

In the middle seat I would take 2 neighbours over 3   The 2-3-2 is still king cramped up in economy.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:06 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4891
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:16 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:32 pm

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]
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18831
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:49 pm

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.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:37 pm

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/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/380
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13230
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:48 pm

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18831
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:27 am

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).
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:35 am

The data in this plot may be a couple of years old, but it gets the point across.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22930
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787-8; The Performance Gap 763ER & 764?

Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:11 am

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.