hiflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:26 am

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?
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3362
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:12 pm

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.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:28 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:07 pm

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.  
 
hiflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:06 am

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:54 pm

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.
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:14 pm

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Fri Oct 05, 2012 4:50 pm

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.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18974
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:53 am

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:04 am

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:31 am

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:49 am

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:35 am

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 avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:00 am

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.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1249
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:58 am

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:18 pm

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.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:51 pm

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:48 am

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?
 
Fabo
Posts: 1141
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:30 am

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:27 pm

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:28 pm

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..
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:00 pm

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

RE: Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax

Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:14 pm

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?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests