UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:23 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 49):
They probably didn't, but by not pushing DL and CO to the A330-200, both continued to buy Boeing widebodies and they both placed orders for the 787 instead of the A350.

Well, DL inherited from NW both a large number of A330s and the order for 18 787s. So I don't quite see your point, at least for DL.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 5783
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:26 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 50):
Well, DL inherited from NW both a large number of A330s and the order for 18 787s. So I don't quite see your point, at least for DL.

The merger with NW wasn't anticipated at the time DL ordered the 764ER.
Yes, I wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD shirts. I am a real man.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:32 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 51):
The merger with NW wasn't anticipated at the time DL ordered the 764ER.

Of course. What I meant is that a) DL did not order the 787, NW did; and b) NW ordered the 787 even after choosing the 330 (not the 764) to replace their DC10s. Hence, DL could have followed the same path: it is not true that without the 764 DL would have automatically chosen the A332 and then the A350, as was implied in the post I was replying to.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26729
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:38 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 50):
Well, DL inherited from NW both a large number of A330s and the order for 18 787s. So I don't quite see your point, at least for DL.

I'm 100% confident DL would have eventually ordered the 787 if they'd stayed independent and that they're keeping the order inherited from NW is evidence enough to me to support that supposition. And then when DL adds to that order down the road...

[Edited 2013-01-05 17:42:06]
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:43 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
I'm 100% confident DL would have eventually ordered the 787 if they'd stayed independent and that they're keeping the order inherited from NW is evidence enough to me to support that supposition.

I don't see how you can be 100% sure. Especially after DL decided to defer their 787s to the next decade. But, in any case, my point is that NW ordered the 787 even after operating the 332. So there was no need for the 764 to prevent DL from defecting forever to Airbus.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9779
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:48 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 52):
it is not true that without the 764 DL would have automatically chosen the A332

DL needed an a/c and decided that additional 763's was not it, at the time the choices were the 772A or the A330, if Boeing had not come up with the 764 the odds are that they would have chosen the A330 like everyone else.
By that time DL had seen EA's use of the A300 and the rest of the world were already buying A330's to replace 767-300ER's so it would have been a good bet that without the 764 the A330 would have been at DL.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:08 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 52):
it is not true that without the 764 DL would have automatically chosen the A332

That was not my complete sentence, which was

Quoting UALWN (Reply 52):
it is not true that without the 764 DL would have automatically chosen the A332 and then the A350,

My point was that it was not a given that DL would have gone from the A330 to the A350: NW (hence DL!) went from the A330 to the 787.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10068
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:15 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 56):
My point was that it was not a given that DL would have gone from the A330 to the A350: NW (hence DL!) went from the A330 to the 787.

But deciding on the A330 vs additional 767s makes it more likely. You are looking at with hindsight, in the 90s nobody was thinking about the 787 vs A350 and how things between the two would shake out. Boeing just wanted to minimize the possibility of DL choosing Airbus is the future as much as possible.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:25 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 57):
Boeing just wanted to minimize the possibility of DL choosing Airbus is the future as much as possible.

Yes, of course. It all started with somebody upthread stating that DL's "ordering" the 787 and not the A350 was proof of the wisdom of Boeing's strategy with the 764. I don't think that's necessarily the case.
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9779
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:39 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 56):
My point was that it was not a given

Nothing is a given at the time unless we are involved with the decision, hence I said good bet, even Stitch is expressing an opinion even if he uses "definate" words, I try to work with what I think is the intent versus the actual words.
An example based on the quote below:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 54):
Especially after DL decided to defer their 787s to the next decade.
Quoting UALWN (Reply 52):
What I meant is that a) DL did not order the 787, NW did; and b) NW ordered the 787 even after choosing the 330 (not the 764) to replace their DC10s

Which makes a pretty interesting debate, DL was the last carrier operating the L1011 in the USA, long after others had gone to the 777, if not for the ground incident they may have continued to operate the small fleet, obviousy they were not enamoured with the 777, even today their fleet is small.
So another safe bet could have been A330's for the L1011's then 787's or A350's, hindsight of course.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10068
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:44 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 59):
Which makes a pretty interesting debate, DL was the last carrier operating the L1011 in the USA, long after others had gone to the 777, if not for the ground incident they may have continued to operate the small fleet, obviousy they were not enamoured with the 777, even today their fleet is small.

I believe DL had some labor problems regarding the pilots and 777 pay rates that resulted in them having a small 777 fleet for so long. They originally ordered 10 with options for 50 more, so they obviously were expecting it to be a major part of their fleet.
 
UA787DEN
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:59 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:46 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 54):
Quoting par13del (Reply 55):

The 333 was/is way too much plane to replace the L-1011s. They would most likely have gone with the 763. I don't agree that they would have taken the 330 if DL was looking for an international route replacement. The Boeing Exclusivity agreement was still in place, and even after it was killed, DL didn't receive and airbus until the merger.

I think DL would have eventually ordered 787s on their own. They are so reliant on the 763 and 764. With the MAX, no replacement aircraft was on the horizon anytime soon. They would have ordered some simply because the 763s are 20 or more years old. The 788 has better economics than the 330, and before the NW merger they didn't operate the 330 or any Airbus. They would have kept going Boeing, especially with the common 777/787 type rating. It would have taken a while, but they would have bought some.

By 3 class seating capacity:
The 767-300 competed with the A300/310 and a little bit the A330-200
The 787-8 and 767-400 compete with the A330-200 (and the 340-200)
The 787-9 competes with the A350-800, and to an extent the A330-300 (and the 340-300)
The 777-200 competes with the A330-300 and A350-900 (and the 340-300 and 500)
The 777-300 competes with the A350-1000 (and the 340-600)

In Y:
The 767 is configured 2-3-2, 7 abreast
The A300/310/330/340 is configured 8 abreast (only a very very few carriers operate it 9 abreast or the 767 8-abreast)
The 787 is configured either 8 or 9 abreast
The 777 is configured either 9 abreast or 10 abreast
The A350 is configured *tentatively* 9 abreast
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:47 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 6):
Many here say that the 788 will cover this gap too, or a super stretched A321/739.

Not anybody that can read or add.

Also on this whole 764 nonsense - the only advantage it has is that you can park it more places. Otherwise its an oddball and a subpar aircraft.

NS
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:38 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 62):
Also on this whole 764 nonsense - the only advantage it has is that you can park it more places. Otherwise its an oddball and a subpar aircraft.

That's not really correct. It does have lower CASM so for a route which doesn't have freight demands which it cannot accommodate in belly cargo and doesn't need extra range it's a perfect aircraft. And common with the 767 for airlines for which that was an advantage.

These advantages weren't enough for it to compete effectively in the marketplace though.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21661
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:05 am

Quoting CM (Reply 2):
The 787 burns 20% less fuel

Per ASM. I think that needs to be clarified. The 787 actually burns more fuel per trip, but it has significantly more passenger and cargo capacity.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
KFlyer
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:05 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:33 am

In fact, a narrowbody flying 4000nm+ routes with 200+ pax would tend to be quite inefficient in the narrowbody's bread and butter 500nm-750nm route category. Hence I doubt that either A or B will compromise the latter in order to achieve the former. There are several airlines for whom such a 4000nm/200pax medium sized aircraft would provide the 'sweet-spot' but none of those airlines are either big enough or rich enough to push the manufacturers into doing it.
The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
 
sweair
Posts: 1816
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:59 am

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:45 am

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 65):

The question is when the 767s and 757s and A332s are gone from the market, what will replace all these flying frames? As many routes these frames currently fly is quite short routes TATL etc The 788 and the A358 are optimized to do much longer routes.

When A and B do the NSA generation they can design some growth into the design but leave the stuff that would make the 500nm frames too heavy out.

They no longer have to cover the 100-150 seat market, the smallest model will be the 738/A320 size(150-160-190 seats). I see the trend of bigger NBs from the duopoly and with modern materials they might get a bigger frame even lighter than the smaller current NBs. The current NBs are not really good above 210 seats or below 150 seats, there are better options in the market or will be soon. The CS300 will be a lot more popular than the A319neo in that seat range I am sure, there are none orders for the 7-MAX.

So A+B has left that segment in 15 years time, however, a size class above the A321 and 739 is vacant, the 757s/767s and other older competitors will be gone mostly by then, the A330 seems getting even more tuned for range with time. So there is some room to grow a third model of the NSA generation of NB upwards if they see the market for it. But to recoup the cost it would have to build on the NSA generation as far as possible, but having more mojo compared to the smaller brothers. The segment or niche would probably be between 3000 and 5000nm and 210-230 seats?!

How do you cram that many seats in a NB without doing a 753? Well maybe by going wider for the future NB, short and stubby for the base models? One stretched model for the segment where older gear fly today, still more efficient than abusing a A358 or a 788.

Its just speculation, we don't know much about the market in 15 years..
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9779
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:36 pm

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 61):
The 333 was/is way too much plane to replace the L-1011s. They would most likely have gone with the 763.

Why limit yourself to the A333, at the time DL was looking at replacing the L-1011's.
The 763 was already in house, if it was that obvious a choice why were they looking for a new a/c, simply order more 763's.
Hence I think they would have looked at the A330 - which was already larger than the 763 and had more range - as well as the 777 which had even more range. I'm not saying they would buy, but due diligence would mandate that they look and based on what was known then, A330's would have been an option.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 61):
The Boeing Exclusivity agreement was still in place,
Quoting Polot (Reply 60):
I believe DL had some labor problems regarding the pilots and 777 pay rates that resulted in them having a small 777 fleet for so long.

And people have the heart to comment on this website that airlines when purchasing a/c do not use politicis, it is all about the merits of the a/c, price and services provided by the OEM, go figure 
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:47 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 64):
Quoting CM (Reply 2):
The 787 burns 20% less fuel

Per ASM. I think that needs to be clarified. The 787 actually burns more fuel per trip, but it has significantly more passenger and cargo capacity.

It definitely does per ASM (that's where the 20% figure came from), but there is some overlap even on trip fuel...i.e. there are missions where the 787 will burn less trip fuel than the 767. The 767's lighter structure will give it a trip fuel advantage on shorter missions.

Tom.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:47 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 64):
The 787 actually burns more fuel per trip,

The data in Reply 29 does not suggest that.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 68):
The 767's lighter structure will give it a trip fuel advantage on shorter missions.

Based on a 30t payload, 700nm range, the 788 burns 7.844t and the 767-300ER with winglets, 7.819t. This gives some idea where the cross over is at.
 
UA787DEN
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:59 pm

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:13 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 64):
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 69):

The 787 and 764 have about the same number of pax in a 3-class per Boeing (everyone knows that they have the most amazing sit pitches and arrangements). The 788 burns generally less fuel on missions, especially intercontinental. The 763 has an advantage on short stage lengths simply because it is lighter. It also carriers 20-25 less people. But CF6s are crap compared to GEnx/Trent 1000s.

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):

DL wanted an aircraft larger than the 763, with good fuel burn, that could fit in smaller gates than a 330. The 332 hadn't even flown yet in 1996, when DL was scouting the market. They had an exclusivity agreement with Boeing, and they didn't want a shrink because it wouldn't have better fuel burn. The 332 had a MTOW of 510,000 lbs, with a wingspan of 197'. The 764 has a MTOW of 450k, and a wingspan of 170 feet. The 764 EIS was 2 years later than the 332, but the 764 had only 2 customers. DL could get theirs at the start and buy more. Also, at the time they operated the 767 already. Because of the exclusivity agreement, they probably got a good discount. The 764 has a lower CASM. That is why DL got the 764.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

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

Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:37 pm

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 70):
The 763 has an advantage on short stage lengths simply because it is lighter. It also carriers 20-25 less people.

The data I provided was based on a payload > than max passenger load. The seating used by PIANO-X to arrive at max passenger load is for the 788 242 seats and for the 767-300ER 238 seats . Very little in it.
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 793
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

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

Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:24 am

Quoting sweair (Reply 3):
The seating in the 767 is the best ever, 2-3-2 in economy, no cross section comes close to being this great.

Total agreement there. The 767's seating arrangement is by far the best. Airy cabin feel with nice wide seats.
 
liftsifter
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:25 am

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

Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:17 am

The only reason anyone would buy a 767 at this point in time is if they need a plane for cheap and very fast, because it looks like it might be quite a long while before we see availability on the 787 line open up.
A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B736 B737 B738 B744 B763 B77L B77E B77W B788 E190
 
VC10er
Topic Author
Posts: 4227
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

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

Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:02 am

Quoting CM (Reply 2):

As the thread starter this very basic comparison for a novice is perfect, thanks. Many other posts are enlightening too but I have to admit it got a bit Delta focused.

It is very true, the way an airline decks out an older ac can be deceiving, and thus the inspiration of my curiosity, the fact that United had made the interior of the 767-4 so comfortable, pleasing to the eye, clean and brand new (I liked the tube better than an A330) and it all got me thinking. I felt how nice the ride to Rio was, but given this somewhat old 767 was, what was going on outside? It is such a HUGE 767, walking to the back makes you realize how big she actually is. Was it making money for United? What are the gap/s between this 764 and the 787? What are these wings with the raked wing tips and these engines x a full pax load delivering? Why just 37 ever made? Why didnt PMUA order them? Or even BA etc? I am a sky warrior and I love to compare every detail of every ac type from a host of different carriers. A 747 will always be my favorite plane to fly in, but given I am rarely on one these days, I spend my life on a straight tube with a flat bulkhead in front: 757's, 767's, A330's, A340's, and 777's. Still a TAM 777 is quite a different feeling than a United 777.

So thanks for helping me "get it" and I'm sure, eventually when I am on a 787 most of the time my great feeling on a 764 will be easily replaced. What I will miss very much is First Class. As much as I like the BF seat, UA Global First will be sorely missed.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
UA787DEN
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:59 pm

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

Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:35 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 71):

242 is the Boeing 3-class for a 788. 238 is Boeing 2-class for a 763. 3-class is only 218 IIRC. 764 3-class is 245.

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 73):

Only if they needed a slightly cheaper or smaller plane fast, or need bulk fast. Also, the used 767 market would be a way to go for many airlines. You can easily find late 90s 763s.

The other usage would be for a freighter. UPS still has some new 767s on order, and the KC-46 Tanker still needs to finish. After that, the 767 production line is history.

To sum up, the 788 is a newer and more fuel effiecient aircraft. It is slightly heavier, so it doesn't have much of an advantage on short stage lengths. It is faster to get a 767 currently than a 787, and there is no current 787F.
 
warren747sp
Posts: 988
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:51 am

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

Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:33 am

So it can fly LAX-NRT???
I believes the 764 lives on as the US Air Force Tanker now!
747SP
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

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

Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:52 am

A 764 can't fly LAX-NRT with an appreciable load, and no, the US Air Force Tanker is a 767-200.

NS
 
UA787DEN
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:59 pm

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

Mon Jan 07, 2013 3:56 am

The Boeing quoted range of 5625 NM is enough to fly LAX-NRT, though add in winds and it gets tight. NRT-LAX no problem. That's what Boeing says. In reality, it will have a fairly large payload penalty and use a lot of fuel. Especially against the wind.

The Air Force Tanker, the KC-46, is a 762-based fuselage, with 787 cockpit displays, and un upgrades version of the KC-10 boom.

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