Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
SQ32
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:49 pm

787-10
2 class seating : 330 (32J, 298Y)
Range : 6,430 nmi (11,910 km)
Est fuel efficiency 3000 nm [email protected] is 2.18 L/100 km

767-400ER
2 class seating : 296 (24J, 272Y)
Range : 5,625 nmi / 10,415 km
Est fuel efficiency 3000 nm [email protected] is 2.5 L/100 km

787-10 is very close to 767-400ER in term range. It is about 15-20% more fuel efficient. Their pax capacity are also quite close.

787-10 is a feasible replacement for 757 and 767.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:02 pm

For the 767-400ER yes, the 757 not at all. Just write down the specs of the 757 and you will see.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2992
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:22 pm

DL and UA 764s only seat about 240 pax at these airlines. In comparison UA 781s seat over 330 passengers. 787-10 is much larger than a 764, hell it’s bigger then the 772 and A359.

Your seating capacity for the 764 is way off from real world.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2774
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:27 pm

You have to be careful with comparing 2 different Airplanes using seating Capacity. Even Boeings own standards have changed over time.

The 781 is 23' longer - even assuming a 32" seat pitch that is 8.6 more rows at 9 per row is additional 75+ seats plus add another 2 x row for the existing 764 39Y rows which is another potential 75+ seats (although not at the same comfort as 764 seats are wider).

The 764 also has a MTOW 20% less than 781.

The 781 has substantially more floor area - on the the order of 50% more.

Look at the seat Maps of United's 764 and 788 - they are roughly comparable in seating given that the 788 has a higher seat pitch in Business and an Extra Inch in Y.

The 764 is more roughly comparable to the 788 in passenger capacity and has about the same Cargo Volume as well.

https://seatguru.com/airlines/United_Ai ... 87-800.php

https://seatguru.com/airlines/United_Ai ... 400_ER.php
 
ethernal
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon May 06, 2019 12:09 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:31 pm

Of course the 787 series is the "closest replacement" for the 767 (it is definitely not a 757 replacement.. the 737-10 is way closer to being a 757 replacement than a 787-10..).

That said, your capacity figures are way off. Are you using an 8-abreast 787-10 as your reference or something? United's J-heavy 781 3.5 class (true Premium Economy and Economy Plus) has 318 (44 J, 21 W, 54 Y+, 199 Y) - seats - nearly equivalent to your low-J "330 seat" 2-class. The best equivalent equipped 764 would be Delta's refurbs which have 238 seats (34 J, 20 W, 28 Y+, 156 Y). This is a seating difference closer to 30%, not the 10-12% you allude to.

The fact that the 787-10's MTOW is 20% / 60 tons higher than the 764 despite the heavy use of composites and other weight-saving techniques shows you that while, yes, they are "close", they are certainly different aircraft with different capacity and mission profiles.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2574
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:50 pm

How on earth you can compare jets of such woefully different sizes like the 757 and the 787-10 is beyond me.....
 
User avatar
SQ32
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:00 pm

Singapore Airlines are using 787-10 in typical "757 and 767 routes", replacing A333. These are short and medium haul regional flight that are also served in parallel with competitor 737s and A320. For examnple

Ho Chi Minh
Maldives
Osaka
Bangkok
Perth
Hong Kong
Guangzhou
Shanghai
Bali
,,,etc

There has been excess frequencies in many of the USA domestic route, due to prevalence of narrow bodies. It is worth trading them for the comfort of widebody.
 
johns624
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:09 pm

SQ32 wrote:
Singapore Airlines are using 787-10 in typical "757 and 767 routes", replacing A333. These are short and medium haul regional flight that are also served in parallel with competitor 737s and A320.
There has been excess frequencies in many of the USA domestic route, due to prevalence of narrow bodies. It is worth trading them for the comfort of widebody.

1. If SQ is using them for replacing 333's, they aren't 757-767 routes. Just because another airline is using 737/320, doesn't mean you have to.
2. They aren't "excess frequencies". They are what the customer wants. You're looking at it backwards. The airlines aren't flying a lot of frequencies because all they use are narrow bodies. They are using narrow bodies because the customers want many frequencies.
 
User avatar
SQ32
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:13 pm

787-10 is incredibly 26% more fuel efficient than A333 in the short and medium haul mission.

****************

According to SIA Group’s data, replacing ageing planes like the Airbus A330-300 with newer aircraft like the Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner boosts fuel productivity by 26 percent, which rises to 29 percent for long-haul operations.

https://business.inquirer.net/282763/si ... z66UGamWCG
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:16 pm

SQ32 wrote:
Singapore Airlines are using 787-10 in typical "757 and 767 routes", replacing A333. These are short and medium haul regional flight that are also served in parallel with competitor 737s and A320. For examnple

Ho Chi Minh
Maldives
Osaka
Bangkok
Perth
Hong Kong
Guangzhou
Shanghai
Bali
,,,etc

There has been excess frequencies in many of the USA domestic route, due to prevalence of narrow bodies. It is worth trading them for the comfort of widebody.

Except that there are no 757s and very few 767s serving the Asia Pacific region. The loads simply requires 330/787 sized planes for it.

In short haul operations, the 787-10 is more efficient than the A330 by 26% according to SQ. This is part of the reason why the 787-10 is replacing the 333s.
 
User avatar
SQ32
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:19 pm

Other than SQ, everyone else using A320 and B737.

Many USA Domestic routes are served in parallel by 737, A320, 757 and 767.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:31 pm

SQ32 wrote:
Singapore Airlines are using 787-10 in typical "757 and 767 routes", replacing A333. These are short and medium haul regional flight that are also served in parallel with competitor 737s and A320. For examnple

Ho Chi Minh
Maldives
Osaka
Bangkok
Perth
Hong Kong
Guangzhou
Shanghai
Bali
,,,etc

There has been excess frequencies in many of the USA domestic route, due to prevalence of narrow bodies. It is worth trading them for the comfort of widebody.


Most of those airports have a combination of lots of traffic + severe slot restrictions in a way which makes flying big planes the only viable way of fulfilling demand. CX has been running 400+ seat 773As around much of these same routes for ages now, it works for APAC but that doesn't mean its good for other regions.

Vietnam's 787-10 fits 24 lie-flat J up front and still fits 367 seats total. By no means is that sort of capacity a "757/767 replacement", unless they are replacing two of the former with one of the latter.
 
bigb
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:40 pm

Ummm no it isn’t a 757/767 replacement.
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:45 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
How on earth you can compare jets of such woefully different sizes like the 757 and the 787-10 is beyond me.....


It's what we do as av geeks. 8-)
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:47 pm

SQ32 wrote:
Singapore Airlines are using 787-10 in typical "757 and 767 routes", replacing A333. These are short and medium haul regional flight that are also served in parallel with competitor 737s and A320. For examnple


Except they're NOT replacing "757 and 767", but they're replacing A333.

SQ32 wrote:
There has been excess frequencies in many of the USA domestic route, due to prevalence of narrow bodies. It is worth trading them for the comfort of widebody.


Tell me WHICH route there are excess frequencies in US?

LGA-ORD? LAX-SFO? Once you go past the busiest trunk routes, the frequency drop drastically.

Oh, and as far as frequency goes, there are definitely "excess frequency" on SIN-CGK and SIN-KUL while you're at it.

jeffrey0032j wrote:
Except that there are no 757s and very few 767s serving the Asia Pacific region. The loads simply requires 330/787 sized planes for it.


There are tons of 767s in Japan. The older one are being replaced by B788/B789 or even A321 (at least for ANA). Some of those 763s are fairly new, though (They were built as part of compensation for 787 delay).
Last edited by zakuivcustom on Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 831
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:48 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
SQ32 wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:
Except that there are no 757s and very few 767s serving the Asia Pacific region. The loads simply requires 330/787 sized planes for it.


There are tons of 767s in Japan. The older one are being replaced by B788/B789 or even A321 (at least for ANA). Some of those 763s are fairly new, though (They were built as part of compensation for 787 delay).

Sorry for not making it clear, regional routes in Asia, obviously the Japanese domestic market is a slightly different market for plane makers.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20282
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:54 pm

SQ32 wrote:
787-10 is incredibly 26% more fuel efficient than A333 in the short and medium haul mission.

****************

According to SIA Group’s data, replacing ageing planes like the Airbus A330-300 with newer aircraft like the Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner boosts fuel productivity by 26 percent, which rises to 29 percent for long-haul operations.

https://business.inquirer.net/282763/si ... z66UGamWCG

That is the real replacement, the A333. Yes, it can replace the tiny quantity of 764 in service. The main role is upgauging A333 routes with great economics.

With the amazingly high cycle and hour limit of validity, there isn't any reason for SQ not to short hop (66,000FC, which I've never heard of before in a widebody, and 200,000 FH, more than any other widebody).

We focus on range The 787-10 is a mid-haul Combi. Forget range, pack in the pallets. Yes, I'm aware UA is pushing the range too.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
SQ32
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:56 pm

I see 787-10 good candidate in replacement for 757s in medium trunks such as SFO-NYC, LAX-NYC. And also trans Atlantic in replacement for 767 such as NYC-LHR.

Its really nice flying widebody for range 1000nm and more.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:03 pm

jeffrey0032j wrote:
Sorry for not making it clear, regional routes in Asia, obviously the Japanese domestic market is a slightly different market for plane makers.


Don't need to apologize :).

I was just pointing out that even in the scenario closest to what OP is pointing out (i.e. replacement for 767 on short/medium haul), you're seeing smaller 788 or 789 (or even downgauging to A321) instead of going all the way to 78X.

NH does have 3 78X...to replace older 772ER, that is.

P.S. Out in East Asia, the only other airline that has 763 from the top of my head is Asiana, and they're using 5 out of their 6 763 almost exclusively on GMP-CJU, while 1 out of 6 is being used as a sub on international routes that see A333, B772, or A321.

GMP-CJU is the same routes that see tons of B772, so there's that...
 
User avatar
SQ32
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:08 pm

While 788 is close in capacity versus the speculated 797 7x, it is the least efficient among 787 family. While many of 757 and 767 are deploy in thick medium haul route, why not deploy 787-10? 787-10 is about 20% more efficient than 767, which is what NMA tries to achieve.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:14 pm

SQ32 wrote:
I see 787-10 good candidate in replacement for 757s in medium trunks such as SFO-NYC, LAX-NYC. And also trans Atlantic in replacement for 767 such as NYC-LHR.


You will see 78X on NYC-LHR...as replacement of 772ER, that is.

Oh, and you can bet that A339neo will be used sooner or later on that route by DL. That's the official B763 replacement for DL anyway.

UA does used 78X on LAX-EWR and SFO-EWR. But they didn't "replace" 752/763, but simply provide more capacity on a few frequencies. Keep in mind UA used domestic 772s on those two routes, also. As for the rest of those frequencies, that's what the mythical Boeing NMA is going to be for.

The bottom line is, there's no such thing as "routes that are normally operated by 757 or 767".
 
LAXBUR
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:05 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:17 pm

I feel like this is another post where an OP is essentially conversing with themselves.

United already flies the 787-10 LAX/SFO-EWR. Just because something is more efficient doesn’t mean it is cheaper to operate. Frequency is important on business routes. So hourly 787-10 flights are likely overkill. Do people think an airline doesn’t consider these things and they know more than the airline?
 
User avatar
SQ32
Topic Author
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:21 pm

You can substitute (replace) one aircraft type with another, or you can add additional flights.

The important thing we may never see NMA. What will be the optimal replacement when 757 and 767 retires. The operating expenditure using A330Neo will definitely be greater than 787-10.
 
Ronaldo747
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:39 pm

SQ32 wrote:
I see 787-10 good candidate in replacement for 757s in medium trunks such as SFO-NYC, LAX-NYC.


But for transcons it is too much airplane. It's the same thing why the 787-8 is not an ideal 763 replacement. The entire 787 line is developed as (ultra-)longhaul aircraft. The 757/(early)767 not.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19178
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:42 pm

SQ32 wrote:
While many of 757 and 767 are deploy in thick medium haul route, why not deploy 787-10? 787-10 is about 20% more efficient than 767, which is what NMA tries to achieve.


The 787-10 is simply too much plane to replace most (if not all) 757 and many 767 routes. It may be cheaper to operate on a per seat basis, but you have to fill those seats.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
SASViking
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:06 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:46 pm

SQ32 wrote:
You can substitute (replace) one aircraft type with another, or you can add additional flights.

The important thing we may never see NMA. What will be the optimal replacement when 757 and 767 retires. The operating expenditure using A330Neo will definitely be greater than 787-10.

It all depends on which airline, route etc. However these are the most logical replacements as of today.
737-9/10 MAX and/or A321Neo/LR/XLR for the 757.
787-8/9 and/or A330Neo for the 767.

The 787-10, together with the 777X and A350s are mainly replacements for A330s, A340s and 777s not 757s and 767s.
Types flown: A319, A320, A32N, A321, A332, A333, A343, AT43, AT75, AT76, B717, B732, B735, B736, B737, B738, B752, B753, CRJ9, DC10, DH4D, DHC3, E135, E145, E175, E190, E195, F100, MD11, MD81, MD82, MD87, RJ1H
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2713
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:54 pm

SQ32 wrote:
Singapore Airlines are using 787-10 in typical "757 and 767 routes", replacing A333. It is worth trading them for the comfort of widebody.


If they're replacing A330s they're barely a 767 replacement, and miles away from being anywhere near a 757 replacement.

SQ32 wrote:
787-10 is incredibly 26% more fuel efficient than A333 in the short and medium haul mission.


Which has zero relevance to the topic at hand.

SQ32 wrote:
Other than SQ, everyone else using A320 and B737.

Many USA Domestic routes are served in parallel by 737, A320, 757 and 767.


Again, zero relevance.

SQ32 wrote:
I see 787-10 good candidate in replacement for 757s in medium trunks such as SFO-NYC, LAX-NYC. And also trans Atlantic in replacement for 767 such as NYC-LHR. Its really nice flying widebody for range 1000nm and more.


Suggest you adjust your vision a smidgen. US customer wants frequency above all else, hence the prevalence of narrow-bodies on trans-cons. But on the last point you finally found a nugget; the -10 does indeed have all the hallmarks of the future Queen of the North Atlantic.

But I guess we've finally ended up at the crux of your argument: You want wide-body comfort on short- and medium-haul services. Can't disagree with you on that, it would indeed be nice. But "nice" is not something that's easily translated into an Excel sheet, and since the vast majority of airlines are driven by numbers and customer requirements, very few will end up with a result where operating a wide-body makes more money. Regardless of how nice it might be. The overwhelming majority of passengers want frequency and lowest cost, and will chose services based on those two criteria.

Therefore, in summary:
767 replacement = A338/9 or 788/9/10. There might be a NMA from Boeing one day, but when and it what shape is anybody's guess.
757 replacement = A321neo, XLR version if you also need the range. There might be a NSA from Boeing one day, see above.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 4529
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:01 pm

Greetings everyone,
I see the 787-8 as the 767-300 replacement. The 767-200 has already been replaced with the A321, the 737-800/900ER and the A330.
I see the 787-9 and -10 as a 777-200 replacement, the -10 where more capacity would be needed.
Boeing doesn't have, yet, a true replacement for the 757. They tried to market the 737-9/10MAX to the airlines a a 757 replacement but they made a mistake by shutting down the 757 production line and taking the 737 too far with the MAX variant. The 737 was not meant to be a long haul plane, the 757 was. The airlines are choosing the now very popular A321NEO as 757 replacement. Icelandair wanted the 737MAX but now given the situation with the MAX they are changing their mind, they are thinking of the A321NEO.

Happy Thanksgiving, to those who celebrate.
Ben Soriano
 
johns624
Posts: 2812
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:10 pm

SQ32 wrote:

Its really nice flying widebody for range 1000nm and more.
It's more about how the individual airline specs the interior than whether it's a WB or NB. Also, 1000nm? I could see maybe 3-4000nm, but 1000?
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:33 pm

SQ32 wrote:
787-10
2 class seating : 330 (32J, 298Y)
Range : 6,430 nmi (11,910 km)
Est fuel efficiency 3000 nm [email protected] is 2.18 L/100 km

767-400ER
2 class seating : 296 (24J, 272Y)
Range : 5,625 nmi / 10,415 km
Est fuel efficiency 3000 nm [email protected] is 2.5 L/100 km

787-10 is very close to 767-400ER in term range. It is about 15-20% more fuel efficient. Their pax capacity are also quite close.

787-10 is a feasible replacement for 757 and 767.


Interesting argumentation technique: you put out a thesis, then chose to refrain from presenting 1/3 of the data of your thesis (the 757, just in case you wonder), only to come then to the conclusion that you just have proved your initial thesis.

And then people reply and you, instead of discussing their input, you simply go on putting "other" things out there, which, by the way, are totally irrelevant to your initial point.

Fascinating.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3524
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:35 pm

American 767 wrote:
Boeing doesn't have, yet, a true replacement for the 757. They tried to market the 737-9/10MAX to the airlines a a 757 replacement but they made a mistake by shutting down the 757 production line and taking the 737 too far with the MAX variant. The 737 was not meant to be a long haul plane, the 757 was. The airlines are choosing the now very popular A321NEO as 757 replacement. Icelandair wanted the 737MAX but now given the situation with the MAX they are changing their mind, they are thinking of the A321NEO.


The 757 was, and is NOT a long-haul plane...unless you consider <4000nmi range "long haul".

People have to keep in mind that when 752 was developed, the narrowbodies consist of B737 Classic and MD-80, neither of which can exactly fly transcon US routes consistently. A320 is not even a thing until 5-6 years later (and early A320 is nowhere as good as current A320ceo), and 737NG is not a thing until 15 years after 757 take the sky.

But yes, A321neo (along with B737 MAX 9/10) is essentially the 752 replacement. There is not enough 753 around for a true replacement to be warranted.

Back to original topic - either way, B78X is a B772/A333 replacement, NOT B757/B767 replacement. Totally different animals.
 
iberiadc852
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:23 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:29 pm

SQ32 wrote:
787-10 is a feasible replacement for 757 and 767.

It depends what you are talking about.
As the 764 maybe, but for the 763 you would need the 787-9.
The 787-8 would only be useful for the 752, and maybe the 753 and the 762.
variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
 
LH707330
Posts: 2356
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:54 pm

One thing to consider is the trip cost of the 787-10: is that lower than the 767 and 757? Delta seems to be quite happy flying 767s to smaller cities because they have demand for ~200 PDEW and the 767 has the lowest trip costs. CASM might be garbage, but if you can't fill the extra seats, trip cost wins the day.
 
TheWorm123
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:51 am

The A321 is the best replacement for a 757-200 now, I’m sure some airlines would prefer a Boeing replacement but they don’t offer anything which isn’t a 737 stretch of some sort.

Even airlines like Jet2 who only previously owned a fleet of 737/757’s (minus leases) are buying in A321’s to replace their 30 year old 757-200’s.

That’s the first Airbus they’ve owned since running cargo A300’s in the 90’s.
B752 B753 A332 A321 B738
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:37 am

SQ32 wrote:
There has been excess frequencies in many of the USA domestic route, due to prevalence of narrow bodies. It is worth trading them for the comfort of widebody.


USA domestic operations run multiple narrowbodies because they can. And because that's what passengers prefer, frequency vs lots of seats at one time.

However, it is not all a narrowbody preference, as UA uses 772As in a high density 360 pax configuration for, among other things, transcons from CA to NYC. Eventually, the 787-10 could replace those aircraft, but there are better uses for them. As noted by UA plans to convert 4 77Es to high density configuration (my bet is that they go to GUM), instead of using 4 787-10s, or rotating 787-10s into transcons (there is an occasional 787-10 on transcons but it is not routine). DL had high density 763s but now rotate 763s on some transcon segments despite intl 763s having 220 seats. DL appears to care more about providing J seating rather than total seating.

But only on transcons do widebodies appear regularly in US domestic operation. As others noted, many international airports are officially (slot) or unofficially slot constrained. Not to mention bilateral limits. If an airline wants more seats in those airports, they need bigger planes.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8270
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:43 am

LH707330 wrote:
One thing to consider is the trip cost of the 787-10: is that lower than the 767 and 757? Delta seems to be quite happy flying 767s to smaller cities because they have demand for ~200 PDEW and the 767 has the lowest trip costs. CASM might be garbage, but if you can't fill the extra seats, trip cost wins the day.


You can't HAVE lower trip cost with higher CASM and more seats.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15154
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:43 am

SQ32 wrote:
787-10 is incredibly 26% more fuel efficient than A333 in the short and medium haul mission.

****************

According to SIA Group’s data, replacing ageing planes like the Airbus A330-300 with newer aircraft like the Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner boosts fuel productivity by 26 percent, which rises to 29 percent for long-haul operations.

https://business.inquirer.net/282763/si ... z66UGamWCG


Garbage in = garbage out. Those figures are based upon a little used LTG/AG basis.

They A333 is 285 seats, 78J 337 seats, 772 266 seats, and 359 medium haul 303 seats.

The Load Tonnes Kilometre (LTK) as computed as a product of network distance (based on Great Circle Distance) and payload, we don’t know what routes they are basing the figures over for each fleet. The seat disparity between types obviously makes up for a lot of the difference. Cargo payload is weighed, hence the weight is known. Passenger weight is the product of passenger numbers and nominal weight, for different classes (J,Y), they have different ratios between types. The American Gallon of fuel (AG) is obtained from fuel receipt as signed by Flight Crew, which is highly dependent of the routes being served.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
DeltaWings
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:06 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:44 am

SQ32 wrote:
787-10
2 class seating : 330 (32J, 298Y)
Range : 6,430 nmi (11,910 km)
Est fuel efficiency 3000 nm [email protected] is 2.18 L/100 km

767-400ER
2 class seating : 296 (24J, 272Y)
Range : 5,625 nmi / 10,415 km
Est fuel efficiency 3000 nm [email protected] is 2.5 L/100 km

787-10 is very close to 767-400ER in term range. It is about 15-20% more fuel efficient. Their pax capacity are also quite close.

787-10 is a feasible replacement for 757 and 767.


No you are wrong.

The 767-400 has been replaced by the 787-9 and the 787-10 is to replace the 777-200ER. Just look at the Pax numbers.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20282
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 3:40 pm

TheWorm123 wrote:
The A321 is the best replacement for a 757-200 now, I’m sure some airlines would prefer a Boeing replacement but they don’t offer anything which isn’t a 737 stretch of some sort.

Even airlines like Jet2 who only previously owned a fleet of 737/757’s (minus leases) are buying in A321’s to replace their 30 year old 757-200’s.

That’s the first Airbus they’ve owned since running cargo A300’s in the 90’s.

This is why Boeing just rolled out the -10 MAX. While the A321NEO has more range and I suspect better takeoff performance, but there will be a competing market.

That said, routes that previously supported a 747-200 will support a 787-10. The debate is what is the best platform. For airports with surplus slots, smaller mid-haul will dominate. The large airports will feel that competition.

I believe the long haul narriwbodies and, if launched, the NMA, will fragment the market.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:51 pm

And I guess we're using 747s to replace 737s. Got it.
Captain Kevin
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:55 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
How on earth you can compare jets of such woefully different sizes like the 757 and the 787-10 is beyond me.....


Well he could have compared a Cessna Caravan with the A380. Conclusion - the A380 is a lot bigger.
 
airlineworker
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:59 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
American 767 wrote:
Boeing doesn't have, yet, a true replacement for the 757. They tried to market the 737-9/10MAX to the airlines a a 757 replacement but they made a mistake by shutting down the 757 production line and taking the 737 too far with the MAX variant. The 737 was not meant to be a long haul plane, the 757 was. The airlines are choosing the now very popular A321NEO as 757 replacement. Icelandair wanted the 737MAX but now given the situation with the MAX they are changing their mind, they are thinking of the A321NEO.


The 757 was, and is NOT a long-haul plane...unless you consider <4000nmi range "long haul".

People have to keep in mind that when 752 was developed, the narrowbodies consist of B737 Classic and MD-80, neither of which can exactly fly transcon US routes consistently. A320 is not even a thing until 5-6 years later (and early A320 is nowhere as good as current A320ceo), and 737NG is not a thing until 15 years after 757 take the sky.

But yes, A321neo (along with B737 MAX 9/10) is essentially the 752 replacement. There is not enough 753 around for a true replacement to be warranted.

Back to original topic - either way, B78X is a B772/A333 replacement, NOT B757/B767 replacement. Totally different animals.


The 757 is a long haul plane as I have flown across the pond to Europe many times and where the 757 really shines is its short runway performance such as at SNA. The A321 will not match the performance of the 757 although it has a bit more range. In the past I was hoping for a 757NG or MAX but it never happened.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2356
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Thu Nov 28, 2019 10:28 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
One thing to consider is the trip cost of the 787-10: is that lower than the 767 and 757? Delta seems to be quite happy flying 767s to smaller cities because they have demand for ~200 PDEW and the 767 has the lowest trip costs. CASM might be garbage, but if you can't fill the extra seats, trip cost wins the day.


You can't HAVE lower trip cost with higher CASM and more seats.

I know, I'm agreeing with you, I was asking a hypothetical question, maybe my wording could have been better. My point is that the 767 still flies because it has a slight trip cost advantage (guessing ~10%) over the 787-10, so if there are insufficient seats on a route to pay for the bigger plane, then there's no point in doing it.

Basically, it's as if OP asked "Why don't we replace 777-300ERs with A380s? The 380 has better CASM." Same answer.
 
TheWorm123
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: 787-10 as replacement for 757 and 767

Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:32 am

lightsaber wrote:
TheWorm123 wrote:
The A321 is the best replacement for a 757-200 now, I’m sure some airlines would prefer a Boeing replacement but they don’t offer anything which isn’t a 737 stretch of some sort.

Even airlines like Jet2 who only previously owned a fleet of 737/757’s (minus leases) are buying in A321’s to replace their 30 year old 757-200’s.

That’s the first Airbus they’ve owned since running cargo A300’s in the 90’s.

This is why Boeing just rolled out the -10 MAX. While the A321NEO has more range and I suspect better takeoff performance, but there will be a competing market.

That said, routes that previously supported a 747-200 will support a 787-10. The debate is what is the best platform. For airports with surplus slots, smaller mid-haul will dominate. The large airports will feel that competition.

I believe the long haul narriwbodies and, if launched, the NMA, will fragment the market.

Lightsaber

I suppose like the NMA it depends what the customers want out of a new plane, I’ve heard that the 737-900ER (as they previous 757 replacement) takes up a lot of runway and a high V1 speed to takeoff where as the 757 only needs 140 knots and a much smaller amount of runway before lift off.

I’m going to hazard a guess that the 737-10 MAX probably isn’t going to match that kind of performance but would the airline care less about than its pilots would? That I don’t actually know.

I suppose my summarising question is, do you think the MAX 10 just a stop gap until the long haul narrowbody clean sheet NMA (aka replacement for 757/767) rears it’s head or will NMA be a total replacement for the 737 and 757 and will encompass different fuselage lengths and ranges instead?
B752 B753 A332 A321 B738

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, airtran737, Argent, axiom, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], bnatraveler, Boof02671, BW985, Cerecl, chiad, Eiszeit, george77300, kavok, klwright69, mxaxai, tofur, upintheair2019, uta999 and 340 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos