aaexecplat wrote:

LeVerdad wrote:

It takes just one grounding, one AC, one bad actor, one something to absolutely ruin the theory of fleet simplification. While the 787 and A350's are maturing, the highly sensitive nature of regulatory bodies won't flinch to ground a type at a moments notice after the 737MAX. If you're flying all 787's and that happens, you've got a serious problem. And when you have the scale of operation that UA does, you can easily find ways to make a mixed fleet work. Fleet diversification has a cost but so does risk.

DartHerald wrote:

It's not just groundings that make a case for a split fleet - Lufthansa are reporting problems with supply of 787 windows - "for the want of a [horseshoe] nail the battle was lost" springs to mind. I'd say two large-ish separate fleets going forward makes a lot of sense for minimising risk!

Couldn't have said it better. Smart managers ALSO manage risk and don't put all eggs in one basket no matter how sexy one basket may be at one point in time. That takes discipline and stones though, which lots of business leaders these days don't have. Not saying Kirby doesn't, but we have seen so many businesses make this mistake across virtually all industries that it has become hard to find businesses who play the long game.

Southwest have had all of their eggs in one aircraft basket for their entire existence, and have become the most successful airline in aviation history. Adding the cost/hassle of an extra fleet type just for diversification is irrational and expensive.

The question is, will Boeing stretch the 787 further in the mid-term with a similar, if not better payload/range as the -10? I'm well aware of the 777x but many of you are claiming fleet simplification. If that's the case, then the 777X is a non-starter. The population isn't shrinking but still running a pretty solid growth rate. They will NEED the ability to upgauge beyond the -10.
They know what the -10 can and have a fairly good idea of what an additional 6 tons GW will do for it.

So now you're left with;
1) does the cost of induction and operating different fleet types, albeit significantly sized outweigh the revenue growth potential of the A359/K?
2) the -8 is THE 767 replacement. 20 years ago, the -8 was marketed and sold as the 763 replacement. The -9 was also marketed at 764/A330 replacement. The biggest difference in capacity from -8 to 763 is the high J/low Y configuration and the 787 being 9y instead of the pictured 8y.
3) what's the 15, 20 and 30 year vision look like? What's the plan over that time?

I would be very surprised to see the 787-8 as part of this order. It is not an ideal 767 replacement. The trip costs for the -9 are nearly the same. With the trend towards a higher premium seat bias, the -9 makes more sense and is a more flexible airplane. It will be a mix of -9s and 10s, with a subset of the 10s being high density domestic.

What’s interesting in reading through these comments is that the 777 does not seem to be a relevant aircraft in future US airline fleets.

flipdewaf wrote:

bigb wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

If I were an airline CEO looking to get the best deal on a large sole source wide body order I would tell the vendors it was an all or nothing race to get the best price.

However, if I were an airline CEO looking to get the best deal on a split order between the vendors then I would tell the vendors it was an all or nothing race to get the best price.

What SK says is the case and what is actually being planned I don’t think are as linked as we’d like to think.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't think its linked when its been internally put out to employees? I wouldn't consider that negotiating in public....

How do we know it’s been internally put to employees?

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From many UAL employees here…….

questions wrote:

What’s interesting in reading through these comments is that the 777 does not seem to be a relevant aircraft in future US airline fleets.

Eventually, AA and UA will look to replace 77Ws. There's no urgency in that.

questions wrote:

What’s interesting in reading through these comments is that the 777 does not seem to be a relevant aircraft in future US airline fleets.

You may get that impression but it is quite relevant. If you were to believe the CEOs of major global airlines, the near and medium term of the global airline industry is about increased demand for travel with constrained supply of aircraft and pilots.

The 321LR and XLR are game changers in some respects but they are not going to solve North America to Asia routes.

While it is unclear how permanent it will be, the new pattern in the US at least is to combine leisure and business travel resulting in sustained demand for air travel. American Airlines announced their blended travel product so I personally see UA and AA ordering the 777X.

VS11 wrote:

questions wrote:

What’s interesting in reading through these comments is that the 777 does not seem to be a relevant aircraft in future US airline fleets.

You may get that impression but it is quite relevant. If you were to believe the CEOs of major global airlines, the near and medium term of the global airline industry is about increased demand for travel with constrained supply of aircraft and pilots.

The 321LR and XLR are game changers in some respects but they are not going to solve North America to Asia routes.

While it is unclear how permanent it will be, the new pattern in the US at least is to combine leisure and business travel resulting in sustained demand for air travel. American Airlines announced their blended travel product so I personally see UA and AA ordering the 777X.

I have a different view of UA, and history supports this view. UA would rather have flights to XXX from IAD/EWR/ORD/SFO/etc. vs. one super large a/c from EWR and SFO. They really use their multihub network to their advantage (helps w/IRROPS too). I'm in CLE, I can connect at EWR/IAD/ORD/DEN and SFO to NRT as an example. Same goes for places like AMS or BRU for me (IAD, ORD, EWR) and countless other destinations have the same multihub service choice. UA has even said it's pushing connections to the other hubs vs. EWR. So, 15 years from now will they get a true 77W replacement? Who knows. For now, the 78J will probably suffice alongside its bigger brother which should result in a Boeing win. Heck, even in its current form, the 78J is scheduled on ORD>TYO which shows off its capabilities.

Sancho99504 wrote:

The question is, will Boeing stretch the 787 further in the mid-term with a similar, if not better payload/range as the -10? I'm well aware of the 777x but many of you are claiming fleet simplification. If that's the case, then the 777X is a non-starter. The population isn't shrinking but still running a pretty solid growth rate. They will NEED the ability to upgauge beyond the -10.
They know what the -10 can and have a fairly good idea of what an additional 6 tons GW will do for it.

So now you're left with;
1) does the cost of induction and operating different fleet types, albeit significantly sized outweigh the revenue growth potential of the A359/K?
2) the -8 is THE 767 replacement. 20 years ago, the -8 was marketed and sold as the 763 replacement. The -9 was also marketed at 764/A330 replacement. The biggest difference in capacity from -8 to 763 is the high J/low Y configuration and the 787 being 9y instead of the pictured 8y.
3) what's the 15, 20 and 30 year vision look like? What's the plan over that time?

I think hte 787-3 was proposed to replace the 767-300 and the 777-200 and nobody wanted it because it didn't have the ranger of the 787-8 or 9. I still think it was ahead of it's time and neither the 767-300/400 nor the 777-200 were ready to go anywhere. Well? Now they might be, and this is a fine time for Boeing to reintroduce the 787-3 for US service TATL and Hawaii service and European and African intercontinental services plus Hawaii to Asia service. the 787-8-9-10 can fly all the Transpac services.
the 787-3 could fly intra Asia.and intrta Europen where the cargo capacity might well be usefulas I suspect the uplift might well rival the A330.

Why didn’t Boeing intro the 787-3 in the last few years as the NMA? Would UA have bought?

strfyr51 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

The question is, will Boeing stretch the 787 further in the mid-term with a similar, if not better payload/range as the -10? I'm well aware of the 777x but many of you are claiming fleet simplification. If that's the case, then the 777X is a non-starter. The population isn't shrinking but still running a pretty solid growth rate. They will NEED the ability to upgauge beyond the -10.
They know what the -10 can and have a fairly good idea of what an additional 6 tons GW will do for it.

So now you're left with;
1) does the cost of induction and operating different fleet types, albeit significantly sized outweigh the revenue growth potential of the A359/K?
2) the -8 is THE 767 replacement. 20 years ago, the -8 was marketed and sold as the 763 replacement. The -9 was also marketed at 764/A330 replacement. The biggest difference in capacity from -8 to 763 is the high J/low Y configuration and the 787 being 9y instead of the pictured 8y.
3) what's the 15, 20 and 30 year vision look like? What's the plan over that time?

I think hte 787-3 was proposed to replace the 767-300 and the 777-200 and nobody wanted it because it didn't have the ranger of the 787-8 or 9. I still think it was ahead of it's time and neither the 767-300/400 nor the 777-200 were ready to go anywhere. Well? Now they might be, and this is a fine time for Boeing to reintroduce the 787-3 for US service TATL and Hawaii service and European and African intercontinental services plus Hawaii to Asia service. the 787-8-9-10 can fly all the Transpac services.
the 787-3 could fly intra Asia.and intrta Europen where the cargo capacity might well be usefulas I suspect the uplift might well rival the A330.

The -3 became nothing more than an uneconomical, different 787. It's far too heavy to be a good use for regional flying. It's one dimensional. You could fly the -8/9/10 around doing the same thing while preserving the flexibility to use it anywhere in the network. The -3 is an 8 with a different wing and Boeing isn't going to spend the money to get it certified, marketed and put into production just for less than 150 orders. It adds complexity to the assembly line because the -3 is that different. Boeing changed the -8 to more closely match the assembly of the -9/10 to lower build and supply chain costs.

As I remember the only Airlines that were interested were JAL and ANA. The total number of orders was 43. JAL and ANA eventually changed their orders to the -8.

If United created a “HIGH J” 787-8 with 46 Polaris seats, and maybe add more PP seats than the current 763 PP seat count…what would the total (roughly guessing) new total passenger counts be after filling the remainder with E+ and E?
(perhaps an even larger number of E+ rows) I am wondering what the total seat count difference would be between the current 763 in High-J vs a 787-8/9 in High J?
If UA wanted to keep their high-J 46 Polaris cabin for LHR & Premium destinations but using the 787-8 do we believe they can fill them if they kept the same amount of frequencies?
The 788 would also add the center “couples” seats back to those routes. I’d like to think a High J 788 would also feature a bumped-up PP cabin.
I figure that for a short 6/7 hour hop across the pond that PP would be extremely popular.

Would that PREMIUM HEAVY configuration make the 788 a more profitable aircraft than its current configuration?
Thanks!

VC10er wrote:

If United created a “HIGH J” 787-8 with 46 Polaris seats, and maybe add more PP seats than the current 763 PP seat count…what would the total (roughly guessing) new total passenger counts be after filling the remainder with E+ and E?
(perhaps an even larger number of E+ rows) I am wondering what the total seat count difference would be between the current 763 in High-J vs a 787-8/9 in High J?
If UA wanted to keep their high-J 46 Polaris cabin for LHR & Premium destinations but using the 787-8 do we believe they can fill them if they kept the same amount of frequencies?
The 788 would also add the center “couples” seats back to those routes. I’d like to think a High J 788 would also feature a bumped-up PP cabin.
I figure that for a short 6/7 hour hop across the pond that PP would be extremely popular.

Would that PREMIUM HEAVY configuration make the 788 a more profitable aircraft than its current configuration?
Thanks!

I wouldn’t doubt it could work as a suitable premium heavy replacement for half of the 763 fleet. Anecdotally, it also seems like they are easily filling the J and PP seats on the longer Hawaii routes. It is almost impossible to get a miles and money upgrade on those flights and it isn't cheap!

A350 is strong candidate to replace 777s. Airbus has reduced 3 tons weight from A350. 787 strong candidate to replace 767,777 with choice of engines, but BA needs to launch an IGW version. 787-10 is lacking range for long haul routes. If Boeing can offer 787igw with good pricing they can get this order. A350 is selling strongly no need for Airbus to discount compared to A340,A380.

sv11

fun2fly wrote:

VS11 wrote:

questions wrote:

What’s interesting in reading through these comments is that the 777 does not seem to be a relevant aircraft in future US airline fleets.

You may get that impression but it is quite relevant. If you were to believe the CEOs of major global airlines, the near and medium term of the global airline industry is about increased demand for travel with constrained supply of aircraft and pilots.

The 321LR and XLR are game changers in some respects but they are not going to solve North America to Asia routes.

While it is unclear how permanent it will be, the new pattern in the US at least is to combine leisure and business travel resulting in sustained demand for air travel. American Airlines announced their blended travel product so I personally see UA and AA ordering the 777X.

I have a different view of UA, and history supports this view. UA would rather have flights to XXX from IAD/EWR/ORD/SFO/etc. vs. one super large a/c from EWR and SFO. They really use their multihub network to their advantage (helps w/IRROPS too). I'm in CLE, I can connect at EWR/IAD/ORD/DEN and SFO to NRT as an example. Same goes for places like AMS or BRU for me (IAD, ORD, EWR) and countless other destinations have the same multihub service choice. UA has even said it's pushing connections to the other hubs vs. EWR. So, 15 years from now will they get a true 77W replacement? Who knows. For now, the 78J will probably suffice alongside its bigger brother which should result in a Boeing win. Heck, even in its current form, the 78J is scheduled on ORD>TYO which shows off its capabilities.

you seem to have left out IAH which is and an be used as an alternative to ORD is the weather is really bad or ORD to IAH when hurricanes threaten IAH. IAH is and should be the gateway to south America and southern Europe. . The combination of the 2 central USA Hubs is pretty formidable as compared to American's ORD/DFW hubs.

flipdewaf wrote:

If I were an airline CEO looking to get the best deal on a large sole source wide body order I would tell the vendors it was an all or nothing race to get the best price.

However, if I were an airline CEO looking to get the best deal on a split order between the vendors then I would tell the vendors it was an all or nothing race to get the best price.

What SK says is the case and what is actually being planned I don’t think are as linked as we’d like to think.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Negotiations don't work like that. Airbus and Boeing know about how many United needs in what timeframe. They will make a really good offer for the total package , say 60 plus 60 options. If suddenly United says, oh we will just order 30 plus 30 options, the price and the secundary package (free training of the pilots, free spares) will be less attractive.

MEA-707 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

If I were an airline CEO looking to get the best deal on a large sole source wide body order I would tell the vendors it was an all or nothing race to get the best price.

However, if I were an airline CEO looking to get the best deal on a split order between the vendors then I would tell the vendors it was an all or nothing race to get the best price.

What SK says is the case and what is actually being planned I don’t think are as linked as we’d like to think.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Negotiations don't work like that. Airbus and Boeing know about how many United needs in what timeframe. They will make a really good offer for the total package , say 60 plus 60 options. If suddenly United says, oh we will just order 30 plus 30 options, the price and the secundary package (free training of the pilots, free spares) will be less attractive.

Yeah but they know the limits and can know when and how much to push. I’m not saying it’s either way but because it is stated as something does not mean that that’s what it is.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not too hard to imagine that UAL have spelled out their overall pricing expectations as in "this is what it will take to win". Odds on that Boeing are going to turn out to have been more willing to get closer to "doing whatever it takes to win" with a 787 model mix. Easier all round to add more 787s than induct A350s. If the 777X is in the picture, there is probably an even greater combo deal to be had. The A350-900/-1000 model mix might have a shot but I suspect that UAL will (be able to) walk away from its existing A350-900 orders (deliveries from 2027?) with minimal penalties. Maybe a few more A321s as a consolation prize?

VC10er wrote:

Would that PREMIUM HEAVY configuration make the 788 a more profitable aircraft than its current configuration?

The problem is an empty 787-8 is significantly heavier than an empty 767-300ER. And on short transatlantic flights, the fuel burn is only marginally different as the current 788 is design optimized for longer flights and the improved fuel efficiency of those newer engines is largely negated by a much heavier airframe.

If UAL wants a 788/763 sized aircraft with a premium heavy interior for transatlantic operations, it's almost certainly better off waiting for a new MOM aircraft which explains why UAL has just retrofitted new interiors in older 767s rather than buying 788s to replace them. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lighter 783 was targeted for that market but never happened.

Too much emphasis is being placed on the "all eggs in one basket" scenario and some sort of "negotiating in public" subterfuge tactic. UA senior leadership has been clear in both public comments/interviews and statements to employees that adding a fleet type is incredibly expensive. That's not to say a new type (whether it be A350, 777x, etc.) won't be added, but there will need to be a compelling financial case. UA has already demonstrated that it's not afraid of putting most of its narrowbody eggs in one basket. While it's true that there is a significant A321 order on the books, the backbone of the domestic fleet for the next couple decades will be the 737. The A321 fleet will largely be aimed at "thin" international routes and primarily p.s.-like transcon service. There was no large order of A320neos or similar to offset the "risk" of a large 737 MAX fleet, despite the MAX's history. This should frame how UA will look at its widebody strategy going forward.

My educated guess is an order for 100+ 787-9 and -10, primarily or entirely composed of the upcoming IGW/HGW variants. The order would likely skew toward the 787-10 given the number of outgoing 777-200s. Obviously, reporting on the specifics of the 787 IGW/HGW varies, but it appears to be an increase to operational weight limits, with no or very limited physical changes to the airframe. By most accounts, the expected MTOW increase for the 787-10 HGW will make its payload-range capabilities very similar to, but slightly less than the 777-200ER. While the -10 HGW will likely not be an exact 1-for-1 payload-range replacement for the -200ER, it should be close enough to be a more than suitable replacement for UA's needs. The A350 is almost universally regarded as a better 1-to-1 replacement for the -200ER, but given UA leaderships' comments on the costs of an added fleet type, I view it as very unlikely that the A350 is ever on property.

We've already seen UA update the 787-9's engine rating to the GEnx-1B76A in order to improve takeoff performance (i.e. an increase to payload-range capability out of takeoff performance-restricted airports). When compared to the -1B74/75 on the 78Z (non-Polaris fleet), the -1B76A provides a 2,000 lb increase in takeoff thrust and a 2.8 C increase in flat rating. Once the last 787-9 is converted to a 78P, the entire 787-9 fleet will have the -1B76A. The existing 787-10 fleet has the -1B76, which has the same takeoff thrust as the -1B76A, but is flat rated to 30 C instead of 32.8 C. Another GEnx variant, the -1B78/P2 is shown to have an even higher takeoff thrust rating on the TCDS. It is not yet certified for any 787 model, but if it is (or if a -1B78A variant with a higher flat rating is certified), there would be options available to increase 787-9/-10 HGW takeoff performance commensurate with the increase in maximum structural weight limits.

UA leadership has also been on record saying (the Kirby interview linked earlier in the thread) they'd be willing to pay contractual penalties in order to avoid anything less than a 100+ airframe fleet. If UA picks the 787, which I think they will, then there will be some form of compensation to Airbus and Rolls-Royce for the deferred A350 order. No one here is privy to the specifics of the A350 contract or any subsequent negotiations between UA and Airbus/RR, but I would speculate that at least some of the "debt" has been repaid to Airbus in the form of the A321 order. That would seem to be a good explanation for the non-XLR A321s, which are less of an obvious fit given the otherwise full commitment to the 737 MAX 10. There may still be more compensation that needs to go to Airbus, but the largest penalty will likely be owed to RR. The most likely outcome is a significant monetary charge to exit the engine commitment, which has been discussed before. There's also a chance that UA could simply order RR engines for some or all of their new 787s. I view that as less likely given that it would introduce a subfleet and another engine type. However, given the size of the widebody order, a 50 or 100 787 RR subfleet would have enough economies of scale to work.

The question of what replaces the 753 and 767 fleet still exists, but my guess is that UA will go the way of AA (and soon to be DL) and simply not directly replace either fleet. Barring some surprise Boeing NMA launch, the 787-9/-10 HGW order will eventually replace the 777-200/200ER fleet and allow 787-8 and non-HGW 787-9 aircraft to pick up any former 767 international flying. There will be a gap between the 737 MAX 10/A321 and the 787-8, just like AA has now, and the network will adapt accordingly.

As for retirements, the 777-200 (non-ER) will likely go first, as well as the early-90s 763s (they will fly as long as possible, but at some point they'll just be too expensive to maintain). We'll continue to see the -200ERs converted to the HD configuration and take over the domestic/Hawaii role. The -200ERs and younger 763s will likely stick around as long as they're capable. I'm not sure what United plans on doing with the 753 fleet, but given its unique role, it will probably also stick around as long as capable. The 764s are also just now receiving the Polaris upgrade, and they are relatively young aircraft (early 2000s). I wouldn't be surprised to see the 764s continue well into the 2030s to fill the 763's current role as the younger 763s are retired. At some point well down the road (mid 2030s), my expectation is a widebody fleet comprised of 787s and the current 777-300ER fleet. As was pointed out earlier, UA does not have a significant need for large widebodies in the 77W or larger category, given the hub and network structure. Its current 77W fleet is adequate and should last a very long time. There is no immediate or mid-term need for the 777X unless UA's network goals change significantly.

dctraynr wrote:

Too much emphasis is being placed on the "all eggs in one basket" scenario and some sort of "negotiating in public" subterfuge tactic. UA senior leadership has been clear in both public comments/interviews and statements to employees that adding a fleet type is incredibly expensive. That's not to say a new type (whether it be A350, 777x, etc.) won't be added, but there will need to be a compelling financial case. UA has already demonstrated that it's not afraid of putting most of its narrowbody eggs in one basket. While it's true that there is a significant A321 order on the books, the backbone of the domestic fleet for the next couple decades will be the 737. The A321 fleet will largely be aimed at "thin" international routes and primarily p.s.-like transcon service. There was no large order of A320neos or similar to offset the "risk" of a large 737 MAX fleet, despite the MAX's history. This should frame how UA will look at its widebody strategy going forward.

My educated guess is an order for 100+ 787-9 and -10, primarily or entirely composed of the upcoming IGW/HGW variants. The order would likely skew toward the 787-10 given the number of outgoing 777-200s. Obviously, reporting on the specifics of the 787 IGW/HGW varies, but it appears to be an increase to operational weight limits, with no or very limited physical changes to the airframe. By most accounts, the expected MTOW increase for the 787-10 HGW will make its payload-range capabilities very similar to, but slightly less than the 777-200ER. While the -10 HGW will likely not be an exact 1-for-1 payload-range replacement for the -200ER, it should be close enough to be a more than suitable replacement for UA's needs. The A350 is almost universally regarded as a better 1-to-1 replacement for the -200ER, but given UA leaderships' comments on the costs of an added fleet type, I view it as very unlikely that the A350 is ever on property.

We've already seen UA update the 787-9's engine rating to the GEnx-1B76A in order to improve takeoff performance (i.e. an increase to payload-range capability out of takeoff performance-restricted airports). When compared to the -1B74/75 on the 78Z (non-Polaris fleet), the -1B76A provides a 2,000 lb increase in takeoff thrust and a 2.8 C increase in flat rating. Once the last 787-9 is converted to a 78P, the entire 787-9 fleet will have the -1B76A. The existing 787-10 fleet has the -1B76, which has the same takeoff thrust as the -1B76A, but is flat rated to 30 C instead of 32.8 C. Another GEnx variant, the -1B78/P2 is shown to have an even higher takeoff thrust rating on the TCDS. It is not yet certified for any 787 model, but if it is (or if a -1B78A variant with a higher flat rating is certified), there would be options available to increase 787-9/-10 HGW takeoff performance commensurate with the increase in maximum structural weight limits.

UA leadership has also been on record saying (the Kirby interview linked earlier in the thread) they'd be willing to pay contractual penalties in order to avoid anything less than a 100+ airframe fleet. If UA picks the 787, which I think they will, then there will be some form of compensation to Airbus and Rolls-Royce for the deferred A350 order. No one here is privy to the specifics of the A350 contract or any subsequent negotiations between UA and Airbus/RR, but I would speculate that at least some of the "debt" has been repaid to Airbus in the form of the A321 order. That would seem to be a good explanation for the non-XLR A321s, which are less of an obvious fit given the otherwise full commitment to the 737 MAX 10. There may still be more compensation that needs to go to Airbus, but the largest penalty will likely be owed to RR. The most likely outcome is a significant monetary charge to exit the engine commitment, which has been discussed before. There's also a chance that UA could simply order RR engines for some or all of their new 787s. I view that as less likely given that it would introduce a subfleet and another engine type. However, given the size of the widebody order, a 50 or 100 787 RR subfleet would have enough economies of scale to work.

The question of what replaces the 753 and 767 fleet still exists, but my guess is that UA will go the way of AA (and soon to be DL) and simply not directly replace either fleet. Barring some surprise Boeing NMA launch, the 787-9/-10 HGW order will eventually replace the 777-200/200ER fleet and allow 787-8 and non-HGW 787-9 aircraft to pick up any former 767 international flying. There will be a gap between the 737 MAX 10/A321 and the 787-8, just like AA has now, and the network will adapt accordingly.

As for retirements, the 777-200 (non-ER) will likely go first, as well as the early-90s 763s (they will fly as long as possible, but at some point they'll just be too expensive to maintain). We'll continue to see the -200ERs converted to the HD configuration and take over the domestic/Hawaii role. The -200ERs and younger 763s will likely stick around as long as they're capable. I'm not sure what United plans on doing with the 753 fleet, but given its unique role, it will probably also stick around as long as capable. The 764s are also just now receiving the Polaris upgrade, and they are relatively young aircraft (early 2000s). I wouldn't be surprised to see the 764s continue well into the 2030s to fill the 763's current role as the younger 763s are retired. At some point well down the road (mid 2030s), my expectation is a widebody fleet comprised of 787s and the current 777-300ER fleet. As was pointed out earlier, UA does not have a significant need for large widebodies in the 77W or larger category, given the hub and network structure. Its current 77W fleet is adequate and should last a very long time. There is no immediate or mid-term need for the 777X unless UA's network goals change significantly.

New here. But been monitoring this thread.

Interesting you mention 78/p2..GE had this to say in 2014

https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis-g ... 41.article


“As GE works to improve the GEnx-1B’s fuel performance, the company is also looking at adding more thrust capability. The engine is already able to produce 78,000lb thrust (111kN) at sea level, a power reserve well beyond the needs of the 787-8 and 787-9. It is expected, however, to allow the 787-10 to take off with a full payload at high-altitude runways or in very hot weather. The standard rating for the 787-10 is 76,000lb thrust, with a 2,000lb thrust margin for “high-hot” conditions.

GE is now studying an even more powerful version of the GEnx, which would raise maximum thrust at sea level to 80,000lb. Although Boeing has not publicly discussed a requirement for such an engine -– perhaps to power a high-gross-weight version of the 787-10 – GE is preparing “in case the airplane needs increased thrust”, How says.”

So I suspect the HGW will primarily be based on 78/P2

As for the order. I suspect 100+ 787s. With HGW being the primary aircraft

airplanedriver6 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Would that PREMIUM HEAVY configuration make the 788 a more profitable aircraft than its current configuration?

The problem is an empty 787-8 is significantly heavier than an empty 767-300ER. And on short transatlantic flights, the fuel burn is only marginally different as the current 788 is design optimized for longer flights and the improved fuel efficiency of those newer engines is largely negated by a much heavier airframe.

If UAL wants a 788/763 sized aircraft with a premium heavy interior for transatlantic operations, it's almost certainly better off waiting for a new MOM aircraft which explains why UAL has just retrofitted new interiors in older 767s rather than buying 788s to replace them. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lighter 783 was targeted for that market but never happened.

Except Boeing said that the 787-8 had a 20% lower fuel burn than the 767-300ER that they projected them to replace. That was Boeing's sales pitch. Are you saying that Boeing doesn't know what they were talking about?

Sancho99504 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Would that PREMIUM HEAVY configuration make the 788 a more profitable aircraft than its current configuration?

The problem is an empty 787-8 is significantly heavier than an empty 767-300ER. And on short transatlantic flights, the fuel burn is only marginally different as the current 788 is design optimized for longer flights and the improved fuel efficiency of those newer engines is largely negated by a much heavier airframe.

If UAL wants a 788/763 sized aircraft with a premium heavy interior for transatlantic operations, it's almost certainly better off waiting for a new MOM aircraft which explains why UAL has just retrofitted new interiors in older 767s rather than buying 788s to replace them. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lighter 783 was targeted for that market but never happened.

Except Boeing said that the 787-8 had a 20% lower fuel burn than the 767-300ER that they projected them to replace. That was Boeing's sales pitch. Are you saying that Boeing doesn't know what they were talking about?

Nobody is saying Boeing doesn’t know what they’re talking about. But costs can be measured many different ways. The 787 wound up being an A330 sized airplane, not a 767 sized airplane. So trip costs versus seat mile costs are very relevant.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Would that PREMIUM HEAVY configuration make the 788 a more profitable aircraft than its current configuration?

The problem is an empty 787-8 is significantly heavier than an empty 767-300ER. And on short transatlantic flights, the fuel burn is only marginally different as the current 788 is design optimized for longer flights and the improved fuel efficiency of those newer engines is largely negated by a much heavier airframe.

If UAL wants a 788/763 sized aircraft with a premium heavy interior for transatlantic operations, it's almost certainly better off waiting for a new MOM aircraft which explains why UAL has just retrofitted new interiors in older 767s rather than buying 788s to replace them. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lighter 783 was targeted for that market but never happened.

Do you have a link that says the 788 "on short transatlantic flights is only marginally different than a 763?"

Because, Boeing and a number of airlines that own both types have said the exact opposite.

Sancho99504 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Would that PREMIUM HEAVY configuration make the 788 a more profitable aircraft than its current configuration?

The problem is an empty 787-8 is significantly heavier than an empty 767-300ER. And on short transatlantic flights, the fuel burn is only marginally different as the current 788 is design optimized for longer flights and the improved fuel efficiency of those newer engines is largely negated by a much heavier airframe.

If UAL wants a 788/763 sized aircraft with a premium heavy interior for transatlantic operations, it's almost certainly better off waiting for a new MOM aircraft which explains why UAL has just retrofitted new interiors in older 767s rather than buying 788s to replace them. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lighter 783 was targeted for that market but never happened.

Except Boeing said that the 787-8 had a 20% lower fuel burn than the 767-300ER that they projected them to replace. That was Boeing's sales pitch. Are you saying that Boeing doesn't know what they were talking about?

With what payload/range? And are we talking fuel burn per seat or per trip? One can play all sorts of fun math games by changing the number of seats, or the payload, or the targeted range when seeking a specific statistic.

The point is not that the 788 is efficient, because it is, but that the aircraft was simply not designed for transatlantic operations. With composite construction the smallest 787 should theoretically be lighter than the 767, or at least much closer in weight given the heavier engines. But it's not, and it's not even close.

Even UAL executives have publicly stated that replacing the 763 with the 788 would be more expensive, which is why they have not done so. It's possible that at some point UAL will not have a choice and the 787 will be the least bad option, but it won't be an optimal solution.

And yeah, I'm gonna trust the numbers of an airline operator over that of a sales pitch. There's a reason why there has been so much industry interest in a new MOM airplane, and the Boeing solution would already be in operation if the 787 and MAX programs had not been such disasters. Recall that it was reported that UAL was seriously expressing interest in new 767s in the absence of a new MOM airplane because it was a better solution than a 788 for UA's specific needs.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

The problem is an empty 787-8 is significantly heavier than an empty 767-300ER. And on short transatlantic flights, the fuel burn is only marginally different as the current 788 is design optimized for longer flights and the improved fuel efficiency of those newer engines is largely negated by a much heavier airframe.

If UAL wants a 788/763 sized aircraft with a premium heavy interior for transatlantic operations, it's almost certainly better off waiting for a new MOM aircraft which explains why UAL has just retrofitted new interiors in older 767s rather than buying 788s to replace them. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lighter 783 was targeted for that market but never happened.

Except Boeing said that the 787-8 had a 20% lower fuel burn than the 767-300ER that they projected them to replace. That was Boeing's sales pitch. Are you saying that Boeing doesn't know what they were talking about?

With what payload/range? And are we talking fuel burn per seat or per trip? One can play all sorts of fun math games by changing the number of seats, or the payload, or the targeted range when seeking a specific statistic.

The point is not that the 788 is efficient, because it is, but that the aircraft was simply not designed for transatlantic operations. With composite construction the smallest 787 should theoretically be lighter than the 767, or at least much closer in weight given the heavier engines. But it's not, and it's not even close.

Even UAL executives have publicly stated that replacing the 763 with the 788 would be more expensive, which is why they have not done so. It's possible that at some point UAL will not have a choice and the 787 will be the least bad option, but it won't be an optimal solution.

And yeah, I'm gonna trust the numbers of an airline operator over that of a sales pitch. There's a reason why there has been so much industry interest in a new MOM airplane, and the Boeing solution would already be in operation if the 787 and MAX programs had not been such disasters. Recall that it was reported that UAL was seriously expressing interest in new 767s in the absence of a new MOM airplane because it was a better solution than a 788 for UA's specific needs.

I hear the points from both of you...but why did AA select the 788 to be its (or one of its) primary TATL a/c? There's something in the enhancements Boeing did that they must have liked enough to purchase a lot more a/c.

No more waiting for MOM or whatever that paper a/c is called if AA and now UA will select alternative a/c (788/321XLR) to replace the 767 as those are two anchor clients for Boeing. If the MOM was real, one of the two of them would have purchased it.

fun2fly wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Except Boeing said that the 787-8 had a 20% lower fuel burn than the 767-300ER that they projected them to replace. That was Boeing's sales pitch. Are you saying that Boeing doesn't know what they were talking about?

With what payload/range? And are we talking fuel burn per seat or per trip? One can play all sorts of fun math games by changing the number of seats, or the payload, or the targeted range when seeking a specific statistic.

The point is not that the 788 is efficient, because it is, but that the aircraft was simply not designed for transatlantic operations. With composite construction the smallest 787 should theoretically be lighter than the 767, or at least much closer in weight given the heavier engines. But it's not, and it's not even close.

Even UAL executives have publicly stated that replacing the 763 with the 788 would be more expensive, which is why they have not done so. It's possible that at some point UAL will not have a choice and the 787 will be the least bad option, but it won't be an optimal solution.

And yeah, I'm gonna trust the numbers of an airline operator over that of a sales pitch. There's a reason why there has been so much industry interest in a new MOM airplane, and the Boeing solution would already be in operation if the 787 and MAX programs had not been such disasters. Recall that it was reported that UAL was seriously expressing interest in new 767s in the absence of a new MOM airplane because it was a better solution than a 788 for UA's specific needs.

I hear the points from both of you...but why did AA select the 788 to be its (or one of its) primary TATL a/c? There's something in the enhancements Boeing did that they must have liked enough to purchase a lot more a/c.

No more waiting for MOM or whatever that paper a/c is called if AA and now UA will select alternative a/c (788/321XLR) to replace the 767 as those are two anchor clients for Boeing. If the MOM was real, one of the two of them would have purchased it.

AA has a much smaller wide body fleet than UA and fleet commonality, availability, and (likely) purchase price trumped other issues.

In regard to the MOM, both AA and UA had/have strong interest and the airplane doesn’t exist due to Boeing’s internal issues. Recall that it originally was supposed to be the immediate followup to the 787 until that program went off rails. Then Boeing decided to do a “quick and cheap” MAX program before moving to the MOM and we all know how that turned out. The MAX 10 and MAX 7 are still not even certified.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

The problem is an empty 787-8 is significantly heavier than an empty 767-300ER. And on short transatlantic flights, the fuel burn is only marginally different as the current 788 is design optimized for longer flights and the improved fuel efficiency of those newer engines is largely negated by a much heavier airframe.

If UAL wants a 788/763 sized aircraft with a premium heavy interior for transatlantic operations, it's almost certainly better off waiting for a new MOM aircraft which explains why UAL has just retrofitted new interiors in older 767s rather than buying 788s to replace them. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lighter 783 was targeted for that market but never happened.

Except Boeing said that the 787-8 had a 20% lower fuel burn than the 767-300ER that they projected them to replace. That was Boeing's sales pitch. Are you saying that Boeing doesn't know what they were talking about?

With what payload/range? And are we talking fuel burn per seat or per trip? One can play all sorts of fun math games by changing the number of seats, or the payload, or the targeted range when seeking a specific statistic.

The point is not that the 788 is efficient, because it is, but that the aircraft was simply not designed for transatlantic operations. With composite construction the smallest 787 should theoretically be lighter than the 767, or at least much closer in weight given the heavier engines. But it's not, and it's not even close.

Even UAL executives have publicly stated that replacing the 763 with the 788 would be more expensive, which is why they have not done so. It's possible that at some point UAL will not have a choice and the 787 will be the least bad option, but it won't be an optimal solution.

And yeah, I'm gonna trust the numbers of an airline operator over that of a sales pitch. There's a reason why there has been so much industry interest in a new MOM airplane, and the Boeing solution would already be in operation if the 787 and MAX programs had not been such disasters. Recall that it was reported that UAL was seriously expressing interest in new 767s in the absence of a new MOM airplane because it was a better solution than a 788 for UA's specific needs.

Anything is going to be more expensive when you replace a bought and paid for many times over aircraft with a $120m jet.
The capital outlay for keeping the 767s flying is a lot cheaper than pumping out billions to replace those aircraft, which isn't a small fleet. Bean counters have a hard time looking at an investment past 5-6 years.

The theoretical MOM would've killed 2 birds with 1 stone for both DL and UA in 75/76 replacement, which is why they were so excited about it.

When Boeing dangled that carrot, we were in a different operating environment. The pandemic and everything that came with it exacerbated a problem that everyone knew was coming and in some regards, we were already seeing pre-pandemic. With the pilot shortage and the fact there is no end in sight to it, growing premium leisure and leisure demand, even if the 787 is 35-40 seats bigger with an identical premium heavy layout, the -8 will end up being more profitable than the 763.

Remember when the airlines stopped buying CR7/9 in favor of the heavier E75? The heavier/bigger E75 had the same number of seats as the CR9 but became a favorite amongst the carriers because they could put in more E+ seats while still being under 76 seats? The demand is there, especially where UA is flying the high J 763.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

With what payload/range? And are we talking fuel burn per seat or per trip? One can play all sorts of fun math games by changing the number of seats, or the payload, or the targeted range when seeking a specific statistic.

The point is not that the 788 is efficient, because it is, but that the aircraft was simply not designed for transatlantic operations. With composite construction the smallest 787 should theoretically be lighter than the 767, or at least much closer in weight given the heavier engines. But it's not, and it's not even close.

Even UAL executives have publicly stated that replacing the 763 with the 788 would be more expensive, which is why they have not done so. It's possible that at some point UAL will not have a choice and the 787 will be the least bad option, but it won't be an optimal solution.

And yeah, I'm gonna trust the numbers of an airline operator over that of a sales pitch. There's a reason why there has been so much industry interest in a new MOM airplane, and the Boeing solution would already be in operation if the 787 and MAX programs had not been such disasters. Recall that it was reported that UAL was seriously expressing interest in new 767s in the absence of a new MOM airplane because it was a better solution than a 788 for UA's specific needs.

I hear the points from both of you...but why did AA select the 788 to be its (or one of its) primary TATL a/c? There's something in the enhancements Boeing did that they must have liked enough to purchase a lot more a/c.

No more waiting for MOM or whatever that paper a/c is called if AA and now UA will select alternative a/c (788/321XLR) to replace the 767 as those are two anchor clients for Boeing. If the MOM was real, one of the two of them would have purchased it.

AA has a much smaller wide body fleet than UA and fleet commonality, availability, and (likely) purchase price trumped other issues.

In regard to the MOM, both AA and UA had/have strong interest and the airplane doesn’t exist due to Boeing’s internal issues. Recall that it originally was supposed to be the immediate followup to the 787 until that program went off rails. Then Boeing decided to do a “quick and cheap” MAX program before moving to the MOM and we all know how that turned out. The MAX 10 and MAX 7 are still not even certified.

Makes you wonder where Boeing would be if they would've held firm on a new aircraft instead of letting Airbus convince them that they had to do the Max? IIRC their original plan would've entered service in 2018/19(somewhere in that time frame) and they rushed the Max because they thought the NEO would take the whole market if they didn't get a plane out at the same time as Airbus.

fun2fly wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Except Boeing said that the 787-8 had a 20% lower fuel burn than the 767-300ER that they projected them to replace. That was Boeing's sales pitch. Are you saying that Boeing doesn't know what they were talking about?

With what payload/range? And are we talking fuel burn per seat or per trip? One can play all sorts of fun math games by changing the number of seats, or the payload, or the targeted range when seeking a specific statistic.

The point is not that the 788 is efficient, because it is, but that the aircraft was simply not designed for transatlantic operations. With composite construction the smallest 787 should theoretically be lighter than the 767, or at least much closer in weight given the heavier engines. But it's not, and it's not even close.

Even UAL executives have publicly stated that replacing the 763 with the 788 would be more expensive, which is why they have not done so. It's possible that at some point UAL will not have a choice and the 787 will be the least bad option, but it won't be an optimal solution.

And yeah, I'm gonna trust the numbers of an airline operator over that of a sales pitch. There's a reason why there has been so much industry interest in a new MOM airplane, and the Boeing solution would already be in operation if the 787 and MAX programs had not been such disasters. Recall that it was reported that UAL was seriously expressing interest in new 767s in the absence of a new MOM airplane because it was a better solution than a 788 for UA's specific needs.

I hear the points from both of you...but why did AA select the 788 to be its (or one of its) primary TATL a/c? There's something in the enhancements Boeing did that they must have liked enough to purchase a lot more a/c.

No more waiting for MOM or whatever that paper a/c is called if AA and now UA will select alternative a/c (788/321XLR) to replace the 767 as those are two anchor clients for Boeing. If the MOM was real, one of the two of them would have purchased it.

UA is using the XLR and Max 10 to replace 757s. AA is using the XLR to replace A321T and to finally replace the short, thin transatlantic markets the 757s flew.

Sancho99504 wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

With what payload/range? And are we talking fuel burn per seat or per trip? One can play all sorts of fun math games by changing the number of seats, or the payload, or the targeted range when seeking a specific statistic.

The point is not that the 788 is efficient, because it is, but that the aircraft was simply not designed for transatlantic operations. With composite construction the smallest 787 should theoretically be lighter than the 767, or at least much closer in weight given the heavier engines. But it's not, and it's not even close.

Even UAL executives have publicly stated that replacing the 763 with the 788 would be more expensive, which is why they have not done so. It's possible that at some point UAL will not have a choice and the 787 will be the least bad option, but it won't be an optimal solution.

And yeah, I'm gonna trust the numbers of an airline operator over that of a sales pitch. There's a reason why there has been so much industry interest in a new MOM airplane, and the Boeing solution would already be in operation if the 787 and MAX programs had not been such disasters. Recall that it was reported that UAL was seriously expressing interest in new 767s in the absence of a new MOM airplane because it was a better solution than a 788 for UA's specific needs.

I hear the points from both of you...but why did AA select the 788 to be its (or one of its) primary TATL a/c? There's something in the enhancements Boeing did that they must have liked enough to purchase a lot more a/c.

No more waiting for MOM or whatever that paper a/c is called if AA and now UA will select alternative a/c (788/321XLR) to replace the 767 as those are two anchor clients for Boeing. If the MOM was real, one of the two of them would have purchased it.

UA is using the XLR and Max 10 to replace 757s. AA is using the XLR to replace A321T and to finally replace the short, thin transatlantic markets the 757s flew.

I think that's the point, how much of the 767 flying can the 321XLR cover? If half, then the 788's not an issue or must have and opens the door a bit for Airbus. The 788 has proven to be a winner to start routes however, such as PPT.

ElroyJetson wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Would that PREMIUM HEAVY configuration make the 788 a more profitable aircraft than its current configuration?

The problem is an empty 787-8 is significantly heavier than an empty 767-300ER. And on short transatlantic flights, the fuel burn is only marginally different as the current 788 is design optimized for longer flights and the improved fuel efficiency of those newer engines is largely negated by a much heavier airframe.

If UAL wants a 788/763 sized aircraft with a premium heavy interior for transatlantic operations, it's almost certainly better off waiting for a new MOM aircraft which explains why UAL has just retrofitted new interiors in older 767s rather than buying 788s to replace them. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lighter 783 was targeted for that market but never happened.

Do you have a link that says the 788 "on short transatlantic flights is only marginally different than a 763?"

Because, Boeing and a number of airlines that own both types have said the exact opposite.

The 767-300ER:
- config : 261pax
- OEM range : 5980nm
- MTOW : 186t
- OEW : 90t
- fuel for OEM range : 69.9t

The 787-8:
- config : 242pax
- OEM range : 7355nm
- MTOW : 228t
- OEW : 119t
- fuel for OEM range : 84.8t

Lets do the same flight with both, for exemple 3500nm*:
fuel needed for the 767-300ER : 69.9*3500/5980=40.9t
fuel neede fot the 787-8 : 84.8*3500/7355=40.3t

*I know it's just approximation by a linear cross product and not taking the climb into account, but close enough since it also not factoring that the 787 would be taking off even further from it's MTOW than the 767.

Yes, the 787 is heavier but in the end, more efficient wings and engines put them very close in fuel burn on a medium haul. The 767-300ER and the 787-8 even share the same max payload or length and since the 787 cabin is wide enough to go 9 abreast in reality while the 767 is at 7 abreast, you can put a lot more seats. And the 787 is also more capable MTOW wise, so less risk to let cargo behind on longer flights, even with more seats.

So close enougt trip cost and easely 20% better per seat cost in favor of the 787. But of course, the 787 is way more expensive than the 767 would have been to buy.

flight152 wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

UA is using the XLR and Max 10 to replace 757s. AA is using the XLR to replace A321T and to finally replace the short, thin transatlantic markets the 757s flew.

I think that's the point, how much of the 767 flying can the 321XLR cover? If half, then the 788's not an issue or must have and opens the door a bit for Airbus. The 788 has proven to be a winner to start routes however, such as PPT.

Something tells me in cargo carrying alone, the 321 isn’t anywhere close to a 763 replacement.

Passenger capacity as well. This can be overcome with frequency, but some airports are slot restricted.

flight152 wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

UA is using the XLR and Max 10 to replace 757s. AA is using the XLR to replace A321T and to finally replace the short, thin transatlantic markets the 757s flew.

I think that's the point, how much of the 767 flying can the 321XLR cover? If half, then the 788's not an issue or must have and opens the door a bit for Airbus. The 788 has proven to be a winner to start routes however, such as PPT.

Something tells me in cargo carrying alone, the 321 isn’t anywhere close to a 763 replacement.

Really? A narrowbody´s cargo carrying capability is not anywher close to that of a widebody? Shocker! #sarcasmoff

mig17 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

The problem is an empty 787-8 is significantly heavier than an empty 767-300ER. And on short transatlantic flights, the fuel burn is only marginally different as the current 788 is design optimized for longer flights and the improved fuel efficiency of those newer engines is largely negated by a much heavier airframe.

If UAL wants a 788/763 sized aircraft with a premium heavy interior for transatlantic operations, it's almost certainly better off waiting for a new MOM aircraft which explains why UAL has just retrofitted new interiors in older 767s rather than buying 788s to replace them. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the lighter 783 was targeted for that market but never happened.

Do you have a link that says the 788 "on short transatlantic flights is only marginally different than a 763?"

Because, Boeing and a number of airlines that own both types have said the exact opposite.

The 767-300ER:
- config : 261pax
- OEM range : 5980nm
- MTOW : 186t
- OEW : 90t
- fuel for OEM range : 69.9t

The 787-8:
- config : 242pax
- OEM range : 7355nm
- MTOW : 228t
- OEW : 119t
- fuel for OEM range : 84.8t

Lets do the same flight with both, for exemple 3500nm*:
fuel needed for the 767-300ER : 69.9*3500/5980=40.9t
fuel neede fot the 787-8 : 84.8*3500/7355=40.3t

*I know it's just approximation by a linear cross product and not taking the climb into account, but close enough since it also not factoring that the 787 would be taking off even further from it's MTOW than the 767.

Yes, the 787 is heavier but in the end, more efficient wings and engines put them very close in fuel burn on a medium haul. The 767-300ER and the 787-8 even share the same max payload or length and since the 787 cabin is wide enough to go 9 abreast in reality while the 767 is at 7 abreast, you can put a lot more seats. And the 787 is also more capable MTOW wise, so less risk to let cargo behind on longer flights, even with more seats.

So close enougt trip cost and easely 20% better per seat cost in favor of the 787. But of course, the 787 is way more expensive than the 767 would have been to buy.

Per seat fuel burn is nice statistic, but note that UAL operates the majority of its 763s with a premium heavy seating config of only 167. Trip costs become the driving metric and not per seat costs.

Suddenly there’s no clear advantage to the 788 other than it’s the only current Boeing option with the added risk of the aircraft not being competitive as soon as a MOM is introduced.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Do you have a link that says the 788 "on short transatlantic flights is only marginally different than a 763?"

Because, Boeing and a number of airlines that own both types have said the exact opposite.

The 767-300ER:
- config : 261pax
- OEM range : 5980nm
- MTOW : 186t
- OEW : 90t
- fuel for OEM range : 69.9t

The 787-8:
- config : 242pax
- OEM range : 7355nm
- MTOW : 228t
- OEW : 119t
- fuel for OEM range : 84.8t

Lets do the same flight with both, for exemple 3500nm*:
fuel needed for the 767-300ER : 69.9*3500/5980=40.9t
fuel neede fot the 787-8 : 84.8*3500/7355=40.3t

*I know it's just approximation by a linear cross product and not taking the climb into account, but close enough since it also not factoring that the 787 would be taking off even further from it's MTOW than the 767.

Yes, the 787 is heavier but in the end, more efficient wings and engines put them very close in fuel burn on a medium haul. The 767-300ER and the 787-8 even share the same max payload or length and since the 787 cabin is wide enough to go 9 abreast in reality while the 767 is at 7 abreast, you can put a lot more seats. And the 787 is also more capable MTOW wise, so less risk to let cargo behind on longer flights, even with more seats.

So close enougt trip cost and easely 20% better per seat cost in favor of the 787. But of course, the 787 is way more expensive than the 767 would have been to buy.

Per seat fuel burn is nice statistic, but note that UAL operates the majority of its 763s with a premium heavy seating config of only 167. Trip costs become the driving metric and not per seat costs.

Suddenly there’s no clear advantage to the 788 other than it’s the only current Boeing option with the added risk of the aircraft not being competitive as soon as a MOM is introduced.

If UA just want the lower per trip cost in prenium heavy configuration, the A321neo XLR is the way to go.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Do you have a link that says the 788 "on short transatlantic flights is only marginally different than a 763?"

Because, Boeing and a number of airlines that own both types have said the exact opposite.

The 767-300ER:
- config : 261pax
- OEM range : 5980nm
- MTOW : 186t
- OEW : 90t
- fuel for OEM range : 69.9t

The 787-8:
- config : 242pax
- OEM range : 7355nm
- MTOW : 228t
- OEW : 119t
- fuel for OEM range : 84.8t

Lets do the same flight with both, for exemple 3500nm*:
fuel needed for the 767-300ER : 69.9*3500/5980=40.9t
fuel neede fot the 787-8 : 84.8*3500/7355=40.3t

*I know it's just approximation by a linear cross product and not taking the climb into account, but close enough since it also not factoring that the 787 would be taking off even further from it's MTOW than the 767.

Yes, the 787 is heavier but in the end, more efficient wings and engines put them very close in fuel burn on a medium haul. The 767-300ER and the 787-8 even share the same max payload or length and since the 787 cabin is wide enough to go 9 abreast in reality while the 767 is at 7 abreast, you can put a lot more seats. And the 787 is also more capable MTOW wise, so less risk to let cargo behind on longer flights, even with more seats.

So close enougt trip cost and easely 20% better per seat cost in favor of the 787. But of course, the 787 is way more expensive than the 767 would have been to buy.

Per seat fuel burn is nice statistic, but note that UAL operates the majority of its 763s with a premium heavy seating config of only 167. Trip costs become the driving metric and not per seat costs.

Suddenly there’s no clear advantage to the 788 other than it’s the only current Boeing option with the added risk of the aircraft not being competitive as soon as a MOM is introduced.

The MOM just isn't happening. The widebody's of the foreseeable future are 777X, 787, A330N and A350.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Do you have a link that says the 788 "on short transatlantic flights is only marginally different than a 763?"

Because, Boeing and a number of airlines that own both types have said the exact opposite.

The 767-300ER:
- config : 261pax
- OEM range : 5980nm
- MTOW : 186t
- OEW : 90t
- fuel for OEM range : 69.9t

The 787-8:
- config : 242pax
- OEM range : 7355nm
- MTOW : 228t
- OEW : 119t
- fuel for OEM range : 84.8t

Lets do the same flight with both, for exemple 3500nm*:
fuel needed for the 767-300ER : 69.9*3500/5980=40.9t
fuel neede fot the 787-8 : 84.8*3500/7355=40.3t

*I know it's just approximation by a linear cross product and not taking the climb into account, but close enough since it also not factoring that the 787 would be taking off even further from it's MTOW than the 767.

Yes, the 787 is heavier but in the end, more efficient wings and engines put them very close in fuel burn on a medium haul. The 767-300ER and the 787-8 even share the same max payload or length and since the 787 cabin is wide enough to go 9 abreast in reality while the 767 is at 7 abreast, you can put a lot more seats. And the 787 is also more capable MTOW wise, so less risk to let cargo behind on longer flights, even with more seats.

So close enougt trip cost and easely 20% better per seat cost in favor of the 787. But of course, the 787 is way more expensive than the 767 would have been to buy.

Per seat fuel burn is nice statistic, but note that UAL operates the majority of its 763s with a premium heavy seating config of only 167. Trip costs become the driving metric and not per seat costs.

Suddenly there’s no clear advantage to the 788 other than it’s the only current Boeing option with the added risk of the aircraft not being competitive as soon as a MOM is introduced.

Nope. Advantage still remains with higher profits from more higher yield business class seats.

The 788 burns slightly less than the 763. They burn around 4t per hour. So cash operating costs will be the same. But if the total seating conifg is the same. Then that will be because the 788 will have a much larger business class and premium economy. Maybe up to 60 seats in business class?

Even at that. The 788 is longer and carriers two extra seats per row in economy.

The cost per seat will be lower and revenue will be higher. If the total seat count is the same then the revenue generation would be MUCH higher because of maybe an extra 20 business class seats?

The problem with the 788 is not its economics. It it’s purchase price. It’s not low enough. American was happy to take it when Boeing agreed to offer them though BCC. I will not be surprised if Boeing does the same thing for United. Offering the 788 through BCC to improves the capital cost equation.

mig17 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

The 767-300ER:
- config : 261pax
- OEM range : 5980nm
- MTOW : 186t
- OEW : 90t
- fuel for OEM range : 69.9t

The 787-8:
- config : 242pax
- OEM range : 7355nm
- MTOW : 228t
- OEW : 119t
- fuel for OEM range : 84.8t

Lets do the same flight with both, for exemple 3500nm*:
fuel needed for the 767-300ER : 69.9*3500/5980=40.9t
fuel neede fot the 787-8 : 84.8*3500/7355=40.3t

*I know it's just approximation by a linear cross product and not taking the climb into account, but close enough since it also not factoring that the 787 would be taking off even further from it's MTOW than the 767.

Yes, the 787 is heavier but in the end, more efficient wings and engines put them very close in fuel burn on a medium haul. The 767-300ER and the 787-8 even share the same max payload or length and since the 787 cabin is wide enough to go 9 abreast in reality while the 767 is at 7 abreast, you can put a lot more seats. And the 787 is also more capable MTOW wise, so less risk to let cargo behind on longer flights, even with more seats.

So close enougt trip cost and easely 20% better per seat cost in favor of the 787. But of course, the 787 is way more expensive than the 767 would have been to buy.

Per seat fuel burn is nice statistic, but note that UAL operates the majority of its 763s with a premium heavy seating config of only 167. Trip costs become the driving metric and not per seat costs.

Suddenly there’s no clear advantage to the 788 other than it’s the only current Boeing option with the added risk of the aircraft not being competitive as soon as a MOM is introduced.

If UA just want the lower per trip cost in prenium heavy configuration, the A321neo XLR is the way to go.

If lower trip cost is the only goal, then yes. But the XLR will not carry the pax load of a 767, and you’re throwing away the chance at generating revenue from belly cargo.

mig17 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

The 767-300ER:
- config : 261pax
- OEM range : 5980nm
- MTOW : 186t
- OEW : 90t
- fuel for OEM range : 69.9t

The 787-8:
- config : 242pax
- OEM range : 7355nm
- MTOW : 228t
- OEW : 119t
- fuel for OEM range : 84.8t

Lets do the same flight with both, for exemple 3500nm*:
fuel needed for the 767-300ER : 69.9*3500/5980=40.9t
fuel neede fot the 787-8 : 84.8*3500/7355=40.3t

*I know it's just approximation by a linear cross product and not taking the climb into account, but close enough since it also not factoring that the 787 would be taking off even further from it's MTOW than the 767.

Yes, the 787 is heavier but in the end, more efficient wings and engines put them very close in fuel burn on a medium haul. The 767-300ER and the 787-8 even share the same max payload or length and since the 787 cabin is wide enough to go 9 abreast in reality while the 767 is at 7 abreast, you can put a lot more seats. And the 787 is also more capable MTOW wise, so less risk to let cargo behind on longer flights, even with more seats.

So close enougt trip cost and easely 20% better per seat cost in favor of the 787. But of course, the 787 is way more expensive than the 767 would have been to buy.

Per seat fuel burn is nice statistic, but note that UAL operates the majority of its 763s with a premium heavy seating config of only 167. Trip costs become the driving metric and not per seat costs.

Suddenly there’s no clear advantage to the 788 other than it’s the only current Boeing option with the added risk of the aircraft not being competitive as soon as a MOM is introduced.

If UA just want the lower per trip cost in prenium heavy configuration, the A321neo XLR is the way to go.

Actually, it's not. The available floor space of a XLR is nowhere near the 763 or 788.

But the XLR does enable a whole bunch of other opportunities and I'd be shocked if UA does not place additional orders.

Isn't this thread ready for closure mods?

airplanedriver6 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Per seat fuel burn is nice statistic, but note that UAL operates the majority of its 763s with a premium heavy seating config of only 167. Trip costs become the driving metric and not per seat costs.

Suddenly there’s no clear advantage to the 788 other than it’s the only current Boeing option with the added risk of the aircraft not being competitive as soon as a MOM is introduced.

If UA just want the lower per trip cost in prenium heavy configuration, the A321neo XLR is the way to go.

Actually, it's not. The available floor space of a XLR is nowhere near the 763 or 788.

But the XLR does enable a whole bunch of other opportunities and I'd be shocked if UA does not place additional orders.

True about the flor space, but in the end considering 6 abreast with 1 aisle and 7 abreast with 2 aisles and only 10m in length difference, you can put more than 2/3 of the 767 seats in an A321N while burning much less than 2/3 of fuel for the same flight.

That is why Boeing had trouble finding space for a widebody MOM. And that is why United will replace 767 with a combination of A321N and larger widebodies (787 or A350) where cargo or pax capacity is really needed.

mig17 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

If UA just want the lower per trip cost in prenium heavy configuration, the A321neo XLR is the way to go.

Actually, it's not. The available floor space of a XLR is nowhere near the 763 or 788.

But the XLR does enable a whole bunch of other opportunities and I'd be shocked if UA does not place additional orders.

True about the flor space, but in the end considering 6 abreast with 1 aile and 7 abreast with 2 ailes and only 10m in length difference, you can put more than 2/3 of the 767 seats in an A321N while burning much less than 2/3 of fuel for the same flight.

That is why Boeing had trouble finding space for a widebody MOM. And that is why United will replace 767 with a combination of A321N and larger widebodies (787 or A350) where cargo or pax capacity is really needed.

Take a look at the seat diagram of the UA High-J 763. 167 seats.



Pax and cargo capacity is already really needed on all the routes the 767 currently operates so the XLR will create multiple new opportunities but it is not a credible 763 replacement for UA.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Actually, it's not. The available floor space of a XLR is nowhere near the 763 or 788.

But the XLR does enable a whole bunch of other opportunities and I'd be shocked if UA does not place additional orders.

True about the flor space, but in the end considering 6 abreast with 1 aile and 7 abreast with 2 ailes and only 10m in length difference, you can put more than 2/3 of the 767 seats in an A321N while burning much less than 2/3 of fuel for the same flight.

That is why Boeing had trouble finding space for a widebody MOM. And that is why United will replace 767 with a combination of A321N and larger widebodies (787 or A350) where cargo or pax capacity is really needed.

Take a look at the seat diagram of the UA High-J 763. 167 seats.



Pax and cargo capacity is already really needed on all the routes the 767 currently operates so the XLR will create multiple new opportunities but it is not a credible 763 replacement for UA.

Given that "Pax and cargo capacity is already really needed on all the routes the 767 currently operates", why are you so argumentative of the -8 being the most suitable replacement for the 763? If you go with the same capacity up front, you gain a fair amount of additional capacity in the back, not to mention a big increase in cargo volume.

I remember when UA was talking about a new 767 purchase. What are the odds that idea might be back on the table?

Could there ever be a 763/764MAX?
I would assume that the unit costs would be less than a 788?

VC10er wrote:

I remember when UA was talking about a new 767 purchase. What are the odds that idea might be back on the table?

Could there ever be a 763/764MAX?
I would assume that the unit costs would be less than a 788?

Boeing nixed any ideas about building Pax 767s. There was some talk of putting the Genx on a 764 freighter, but have no idea what happened to that.

Sancho99504 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

mig17 wrote:

True about the flor space, but in the end considering 6 abreast with 1 aile and 7 abreast with 2 ailes and only 10m in length difference, you can put more than 2/3 of the 767 seats in an A321N while burning much less than 2/3 of fuel for the same flight.

That is why Boeing had trouble finding space for a widebody MOM. And that is why United will replace 767 with a combination of A321N and larger widebodies (787 or A350) where cargo or pax capacity is really needed.

Take a look at the seat diagram of the UA High-J 763. 167 seats.



Pax and cargo capacity is already really needed on all the routes the 767 currently operates so the XLR will create multiple new opportunities but it is not a credible 763 replacement for UA.

Given that "Pax and cargo capacity is already really needed on all the routes the 767 currently operates", why are you so argumentative of the -8 being the most suitable replacement for the 763? If you go with the same capacity up front, you gain a fair amount of additional capacity in the back, not to mention a big increase in cargo volume.

If I come across as argumentative, I apologize as I am fascinated by the discussion.

The scenario where the 788 is the most suitable replacement is where UA is only considering current Boeing options and then the 788 becomes the least bad option.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Take a look at the seat diagram of the UA High-J 763. 167 seats.



Pax and cargo capacity is already really needed on all the routes the 767 currently operates so the XLR will create multiple new opportunities but it is not a credible 763 replacement for UA.

Given that "Pax and cargo capacity is already really needed on all the routes the 767 currently operates", why are you so argumentative of the -8 being the most suitable replacement for the 763? If you go with the same capacity up front, you gain a fair amount of additional capacity in the back, not to mention a big increase in cargo volume.

If I come across as argumentative, I apologize as I am fascinated by the discussion.

The scenario where the 788 is the most suitable replacement is where UA is only considering current Boeing options and then the 788 becomes the least bad option.

No biggie, was just curious.
I'm hoping that UA will just make a solid commitment to the A350. They have 96 777s in the fleet with most of the 200s coming due for replacement by 2030. One could argue that replacing the fleet by 2032 would be a great way to build for the 30s and most of the 40s whilst getting a good price for the 300ERs from freighter conversion companies and logically, use about 55-60 900s and the balance being 1000s. Additionally, I feel that UA could also add 15 more -8s, 25 -9s and an additional 40-50 -10s that would give them a formidable fleet that is extremely flexible as I believe the -10 is better than the -9 except on the extreme edges of the range chart.

The argument that UA has so many hubs doesn't hold much water because most of the international flights are going to slot controlled airports, so frequencies only matter if you can get the slots to add frequencies to match demand. They're going to have to add capacity thru upguaging.