Page 2 of 2

RE: Is The 787 Too Small?

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:37 am
by tdscanuck
Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 49):
All I am trying to say here is that it looks like many of the major international carriers have built up their fleets in such a way that the B787 would not be able to replace their current aircraft in a sufficient way. Certainly the 787-9 and 10 can replace some of their lower capacity needs but it looks like Airbus is developing an aircraft (A350) that is more in line with the needs of their customers, size wise.

I think you're running the requirements backwards. Airlines require flights from A to B at a profit. Given current technology, that requires airplanes of a certain size. Airlines don't say "I want a 252 seat airplane", they say "I want to go from here to here and make money" and they look at the options and pick the best mix of size/frequency for them. If an airplane comes out with a different balance of size/economics, airlines adjust their schedules to make best use of it.

Tom.

RE: Is The 787 Too Small?

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:20 am
by SEPilot
Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 49):

All I am trying to say here is that it looks like many of the major international carriers have built up their fleets in such a way that the B787 would not be able to replace their current aircraft in a sufficient way. Certainly the 787-9 and 10 can replace some of their lower capacity needs but it looks like Airbus is developing an aircraft (A350) that is more in line with the needs of their customers, size wise.

Don't forget that airlines built their fleets up out of what was available at the time. When it comes time to replace them there is no guarantee that they will go for the same size, because what is available is now different. They are looking for the planes with which they can make the most money, and one of the most important factor is the best CASM. In the past that has usually been the biggest plane, but I believe that the 787 will offer the best CASM of any plane now being offered. That is why it has sold so well.

Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 49):

It's not the speed at which an aircraft sells before it's launch but rather the amount of aircraft that are sold over the production cycle that determines it's ultimate success.

I believe that the 787 has sold enough that if it goes in service without any huge surprises or delays and never sells another one it will be a success. Needless to say, that's hardly likely to happen.

RE: Is The 787 Too Small?

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:51 am
by Paddy
The 787 isn't too small, it just isn't big enough for everybody. While it is too small for certain airines and what they want to do with a next-gen widebody, we will see a lot of routes opened up with the 787 BECAUSE it is smaller than a 777/333. I don't know where this "all things for all people" expectation came from. Tim Clark and Geoff Dixon I guess?

RE: Is The 787 Too Small?

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:57 pm
by bringiton
Quoting Eaa3 (Reply 49):
All I am trying to say here is that it looks like many of the major international carriers have built up their fleets in such a way that the B787 would not be able to replace their current aircraft in a sufficient way. Certainly the 787-9 and 10 can replace some of their lower capacity needs but it looks like Airbus is developing an aircraft (A350) that is more in line with the needs of their customers, size wise. Don't misunderstand me. I do think that the 787 is and will sell well I just think that the gamble lies in Boeing picking the 200-250+ seat market instead of going a little bit larger.

Well looking at BA's fleet they have 21 767's along with 5 777-200 , those they can replace with the current 787 models and still have room for expansion . The 787-10 specially if the HGW vareint would be a great aircaft to replace BA's 777-2ER's and so will be the A350-1000 , which can also replace many of BA's 747's . The 787 looks good for them with the -8 replacing the 767's and the -9 adding capacity and for expansion . The future 10 varient can also find itself in the BA fleet . The A350 can also serve BA well , so i dont see how the 787 IS TOO SMALL FOR BA given the aircraft they are replacing .

Now comming to LH they can also make use of the 787-9 to replace the 330-300's and also use -9 and -10 to replace 340-300 , they can also use the A350-1000 and -900 . Again i see 787 not being TOO SMALL for LH , it may be smaller then the 350 but not significantly so in the market where it competes .

I think you are particularly talking of the A350-1000 for which their is no 787 competitor (atleast direct) . That is true however boeing is competing in other markets , for 330 , 767 and early 777 replacement cycles . When the time comes for the bulk 777 replacement they will have to either bump up the 787-10 (11?) or do another aircraft to compete with the -1000 for airlines looking to replace bigger 777's but that is way into the future.

RE: Is The 787 Too Small?

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:50 pm
by sparkingwave
Quoting Eaa3 (Thread starter):
It seems to me that most large international airlines don’t like to use aircraft much smaller than the B777-200 for their long haul routes i.e. around from 270-350+ passengers.

It could be that before the 787, there really weren't smaller airplanes that could do long-haul routes. The 767 isn't capable of transpacific ops, and the A330? Well, it isn't really a long-hauler either. That role was supposed to be covered by the A340.

Airlines may used 777-sized planes for long-haul routes with lots of passenger demand, but the 787 will allow for long-haul routes with less demand. You seem to be forgetting this point, or ignoring it altogether. The 787 will allow airlines to create new markets or make profits from niche markets previously underserved by larger long-haulers.

SparkingWave ~~~

RE: Is The 787 Too Small?

Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:08 am
by SEPilot
Quoting SparkingWave (Reply 54):
It could be that before the 787, there really weren't smaller airplanes that could do long-haul routes.

Very true; Boeing discovered that a majority of customers for the 747 bought it for the range, not the capacity. That was before the 777, which is now the smallest plane capable of very long routes. The 787 offers very long range at a lower CASM in a smaller plane. This is a very good thing.