The 787 has often been described as a game-changer as it, so the story goes, allows to open up thon long-haul routes for the first time that either same-sized older generation aircraft could not serve technically or that could not be served economically by a larger/older type.

I was wondering if you guys could give some examples for routes served by the 787 that fall into that category, i.e. routes where the 787 not simply replaced an older generation aircraft that plied the route before. Examples that come to my mind are...:

NRT-DUS by NH
NRT-BOS by JL

AUS-LHR By BA springs to mind

AI : DEL to SYD and MEL

DEN-NRT, non-starter before an aircraft with the 787's capacity, performance and costs.

UA flying LAX-MEL on a 787-9

JL to BOS comes to mind for me.

UA: DEN-NRT, IAH-LOS and if it ever starts IAH-AKL

Don't forget JL NRT-SAN. I don't think that one would happen without 788.

Quoting vfw614 (Thread starter): The 787 has often been described as a game-changer as it, so the story goes, allows to open up thon long-haul routes for the first time that either same-sized older generation aircraft could not serve technically or that could not be served economically by a larger/older type.

Pretty much all of Norwegian's current and planned network, no? Seems all attempts to open Norwegian's routes with 767ER and/or A330 were not viable financially.

Quoting bobdino (Reply 4): UA flying LAX-MEL on a 787-9

They had flown the route before, even with a 707.

Quoting zeke (Reply 9): They had flown the route before, even with a 707.

You learn something new every day! I never knew that UA operated 707's.

Quoting zeke (Reply 9): They had flown the route before, even with a 707.

I think he meant LAX-MEL non-stop scheduled pax service. Given that LAX-MEL = 12748km - I believe it would have been out of range for non-stop 707 scheduled pax services.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 10): You learn something new every day! I never knew that UA operated 707's.

Yes they did.  

View Large View Medium Photo © David Schulman

View Large View Medium Photo © Bob Garrard

View Large View Medium Photo © Bill Armstrong

View Large View Medium Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum

Regards,

SA7700

so far, the only true route that has been given a "game-changer" for United is the DEN-NRT and SFO-CTU route.

IAH-LOS could be added, but has been doing the 777, but the 787 will allow for a better revenue performer. As for LAX-MEL, it does allow a non-stop versus a one-stop. So, still offered as part of the 787 capability, but I wouldn't call it a game changer.

Outside of SFO-CTU, I'd say the true game changer is LHR-AUS. (so far)

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 11): Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 10): You learn something new every day! I never knew that UA operated 707's. Yes they did.

Uh oh, you just opened the "Is the 720 a 707" can of worms....

You're right about the range thouth, the 707 trips across the Pacific usually stopped in Honolulu and Nadi, at least in the early days of Qantas flying the route.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 13): Uh oh, you just opened the "Is the 720 a 707" can of worms....

In that case I stand to be corrected then...  


Regards,

SA7700

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 1): AUS-LHR By BA springs to mind

How much of this is due to the aircraft vs. tax breaks and incentives for BA?

Quoting c680 (Reply 7): Don't forget JL NRT-SAN. I don't think that one would happen without 788.

SJC - NRT also previously was flown by a 777, but AA cut that route, so the 787 makes it viable. In a way, there are two categories here...routes previously flown that didn't last, and routes previously not flown at all. In both cases, the 787 can make it viable.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 13): Uh oh, you just opened the "Is the 720 a 707" can of worms....

From the standpoint of pure designation, 720 is not the same as 707, but the plane basically was just a shortened 707, and it sure looks like a 707. I guess in today's environment, it might be called the 707-500 or 707-600, or maybe 706 (if Airbus). Anyway, it wouldn't have had the range for LAX - MEL. Weren't they mostly used domestically?

30% of 787 routes are new routes and not just a replacement aircraft.

Below is a list of 787 routes that cannot realistically be flown by any other aircraft of similar size:

BOS-NRT
ADD-YYZ
SCL-MAD
DEL-MEL
DEL-SYD
IAH-LOS
LAX-PVG
LGW-HKT
PEK-ORD
NRT-MEX
CAN-YVR
NRT-JFK
SFO-CTU
PEK-BOS
AMM-ORD
AMM-YUL
MEL-LAX

This does not include routes that become feasible because of the 15-20% drop in costs but are technically in range of other aircraft (like LHR-AUS or DEN-NRT); nor the routes that become feasible because the 787 can carry more cargo (volume and weight) than any aircraft with less than 300 seats.

The 787 is being used to make new routes but it is also being used to make existing routes more profitable which will help airlines make more money so they will grow and open new routes. The Just Planes DY 787 video shows a flight at MTOW from OSL-BKK (4,686nm) because it was loaded to the gills (ha!) with Norwegian Salmon. Not something a 767 or an A330 could do.

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 12): IAH-LOS could be added, but has been doing the 777, but the 787 will allow for a better revenue performer.

The 777 should have more revenue as it carries more cargo and seats about 50 more seats. But the 788 is more right sized at 219 seats with the lower operating costs should allow for higher profit but not revenue.

We are seeing airlines down size from a 777 to a 787 and with the 789 that should continue. We really don't know if airlines are using 777s on routes because it was the smallest aircraft that could get them there or if there is real demand at that size. For some routes we can see that airlines are choosing to downsize to improve profitability.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): Below is a list of 787 routes that cannot realistically be flown by any other aircraft of similar size:

Yes, and we're in the very early days of the 787. As more get out there, I think more of their unique properties will be put into use.

Most of these routes would have been opened at some point. Eg LAX-PVG. Many more long routes are also opened without 787s.

Everyone seem to forget the African operators of 787s. But I'm really curious to see what ET is gonna plan as future routes. This country has an amazing economical growth and I assume new routes are to be expected... The 787 seems to be the perfect "metal" for this mission...

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): BOS-NRT ADD-YYZ SCL-MAD DEL-MEL DEL-SYD IAH-LOS LAX-PVG LGW-HKT PEK-ORD NRT-MEX CAN-YVR NRT-JFK SFO-CTU PEK-BOS AMM-ORD AMM-YUL MEL-LAX

SCL-MAD??? ... really not the best example,

Slowly we will see more and more routes the problem is the price of fuel, if it gets more expensive it wont be that easy to make profit in that long thin routes.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18): more of their unique properties

But what's so unique or game-changing about it ?
It's a great plane, and I am very interested by some of the engineering choices, but it's simply the next step in efficiency which can reasonably be expected from any new generation of airliner. The A350 will bring similar gains to the table compared to the 777. Actually I find the 777 to have been more of a revolution in its day, as a large long-range twin with excellent performances. To the extent that it quickly marginalized its quad competitors.

Sorry to spoil the party !    ...but I've never really understood all the hype  

Quoting migair54 (Reply 21): SCL-MAD??? ... really not the best example

Its over 6,600 miles. Not easy for a similar sized twin to accomplish.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18): Yes, and we're in the very early days of the 787. As more get out there, I think more of their unique properties will be put into use.

It will indeed be interesting to see if there is a change. If 30% of current 787s are new routes then what happens when there are 1,000 flying. Is that over 150 new routes?

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 22): I've never really understood all the hype

It certainly was over hyped. That level of CFRP, non-bleed, and electric architecture are the big changes over previous models and I don't think CFRP has completely lived up to its billing at this point. Its not that much lighter but we will have to see if the airframe will last that much longer than an Al aircraft as that could be a very significant advancement as well.

tortugamon

Yes, 787 is a game changer....it has potential to turn Boeing into a crisis company. Boeing management is trying to squeeze the subcontractors, getting rid of experienced workers and fighting needlessly with trade unions while at the same time try to ramp up the production with cheap but very inexperienced workforce.

There is a lot of internal silent information and experience in any company that the bean counters cannot quantify but they will notice it when it has been destroyed! The profits will turn into big losses because of all kinds of unexpected delays and problems. Boeing is in the process doing exactly that.

Quoting bobdino (Reply 4): UA flying LAX-MEL on a 787-9

Not to nitpick, but United did offer scheduled LAX-MEL nonstop service in the past, IIRC with 744s; albeit on a very limited seasonal basis.

Quoting zeke (Reply 9): They had flown the route before, even with a 707.

Errmmm..the key is "non-stop", Zeke.

And I think profitably works in there, too.

Quoting zeke (Reply 9): They had flown the route before, even with a 707.

That logic rules out any route then - one can get to the vast majority of the world one-stop from MEL today. Does that mean that being able to fly direct has no value?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): BOS-NRT ADD-YYZ SCL-MAD DEL-MEL DEL-SYD IAH-LOS LAX-PVG LGW-HKT PEK-ORD NRT-MEX CAN-YVR NRT-JFK SFO-CTU PEK-BOS AMM-ORD AMM-YUL MEL-LAX

Pax wise, there are a number of routes here that would only be possible because of the 787.

However, does anyone have any info as to how well handling cargo loads could add to the equation here? I looked at some of the DEN numbers and their other long-hauls, BA 777 DEN-LHR and LH 744 DEN-FRA, and cargo seems to be quite significant on both of these. The numbers of June and July with the UA DEN-NRT flight is also significant.

I would have to wonder how much cargo would be some significant par of all of the other markets where the 787 can make a route possible?

 

Quoting point2point (Reply 28): However, does anyone have any info as to how well handling cargo loads could add to the equation here? I looked at some of the DEN numbers and their other long-hauls, BA 777 DEN-LHR and LH 744 DEN-FRA, and cargo seems to be quite significant on both of these.

A 242 seat 788 has a volume limited payload of ~ 38.5t and will haul this ~11.5hrs. The 280-seat 789 is ~ 45.5t and 12-hrs. These both assume belly cargo weight density at ~160kg/m3 . OEW is taken as 117.7t and 123t respectively and a DOW add on value based on TK's DOW values for aircraft with similar passenger loads. It is possible that if the cargo volume exceeds the weight the TOW could be less than the sum of the OEW plus DOW plus fuel plus passenger load plus freight on a volume=weight basis.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): Below is a list of 787 routes that cannot realistically be flown by any other aircraft of similar size: BOS-NRT ADD-YYZ SCL-MAD DEL-MEL DEL-SYD IAH-LOS LAX-PVG LGW-HKT PEK-ORD NRT-MEX CAN-YVR NRT-JFK SFO-CTU PEK-BOS AMM-ORD AMM-YUL MEL-LAX

What about the A 350? Then that would make it 2 "game changing" aircraft. In which case neither A 350 nor B 787 would be game changers  ; just a natural evolution of the product line of each manufacturer perhaps.

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 12): IAH-LOS could be added, but has been doing the 777, but the 787 will allow for a better revenue performer.

Per United.com IAH-LOS is a 787

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 11): I think he meant LAX-MEL non-stop scheduled pax service. Given that LAX-MEL = 12748km - I believe it would have been out of range for non-stop 707 scheduled pax services.

I actually meant to quote the Air India flying to Australia, they had done so before, a long time ago, maybe 15-20 years, they had serviced Australia with a number of different aircraft including the 707.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 29): A 242 seat 788 has a volume limited payload of ~ 38.5t and will haul this ~11.5hrs. The 280-seat 789 is ~ 45.5t and 12-hrs. These both assume belly cargo weight density at ~160kg/m3 . OEW is taken as 117.7t and 123t respectively and a DOW add on value based on TK's DOW values for aircraft with similar passenger loads. It is possible that if the cargo volume exceeds the weight the TOW could be less than the sum of the OEW plus DOW plus fuel plus passenger load plus freight on a volume=weight basis.

You need to be careful with Boeing numbers, particular with respect to payload. On another thread a member was "sucker in" with the Boeing ACAPS number of 63,957 kg as being the payload available on the 77L.

This is the reality

Have a look at the 77L numbers in this http://www.theairlinepilots.com/foru...e/b777/b777piaweightandbalance.pdf

MZFW = 209106 kg
EW = 140993 kg

MZFW-EW = 68113 kg

Minus
Cabin furniture = 13504 kg
Catering = 3686 kg
Crew & baggage (4/14) = 1774 kg
Flight pack = 459 kg

That is back to 48.6t

Almost 20t of the payload was not available for revenue, most of that was the cabin furniture. You will need to down grade the numbers by some margin to get what the aircraft will actually carry, I would suggest the 789 would be more like 30t.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 26): And I think profitably works in there, to

As I mentioned I had made a mistake, Air India had serviced Australia before with the 707 and 747. However in terms of yield, in the 707 days, things were far more profitable even with the stop. Yields are so tight these days.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 18): LAX-PVG

I recall flying that flight a couple of years back on an A340-600. It is currently flown by UA, AA, and China Eastern, of which, only UA flies it with a 787.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 30): What about the A 350? Then that would make it 2 "game changing" aircraft. In which case neither A 350 nor B 787 would be game changers ; just a natural evolution of the product line of each manufacturer perhaps.

I personally don't like the term 'game changing' because I don't know what it means. The 787 had a very different way of thinking in that it is the first aircraft to be made primarily out of CFRP. The first with an electric architecture. And the first to use forego bleed air to allow the engines to hopefully be more efficient. Couple that with the technology in the cockpit which is more evolutionary but very important stuff and I would say on a whole its a significant change that is very rare in an otherwise conservative business. Use whatever term you like. I personally don't see the A350 technology as being that much advanced than the 787 because in many ways they didn't push the envelope (electric architecture, CFRP tube vs panels, etc) which may end up being a very good idea. Time will tell.

Quoting point2point (Reply 28): Pax wise, there are a number of routes here that would only be possible because of the 787.

And there are many others that are shorter distances that are only viable on a 787 as well. Just a partial list indicating what is only possible with a 787. Certainly there are more.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): SCL-MAD

SCL-MAD has been flown non-stop for many years, most recently by both LA and IB with A343s. Now LA have switched their flight to a 788, while IB remain in the route with an A343. So I don't see how this route "cannot realistically be flown by any other aircraft of similar size."

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17):

You listed NRT-JFK .... That route is flown like 5x daily by 3 airlines (6x if u include EWRNRT) ... Remind me why anything bigger than 787 is not feasible ?

Same thing with LAXPVG ... That route is suffering from temporary over capacity, not lack of viability if only 1 player exists

Quoting UALWN (Reply 35): SCL-MAD has been flown non-stop for many years, most recently by both LA and IB with A343s. Now LA have switched their flight to a 788, while IB remain in the route with an A343. So I don't see how this route "cannot realistically be flown by any other aircraft of similar size."

True, the A343 does have more range. I should have added 'twin' to the mix or maybe just added 'efficient aircraft'. Its outside of the realistic range of the A330 and the 767. A 787 taking over for an A340 will provide some excellent economics for the operator.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 36): You listed NRT-JFK .... That route is flown like 5x daily by 3 airlines (6x if u include EWRNRT) ... Remind me why anything bigger than 787 is not feasible ?

I didn't say anything bigger than the 787 wasn't feasible.

tortugamon

Quoting SA7700 (Reply 11): Quoting zeke (Reply 9): They had flown the route before, even with a 707. I think he meant LAX-MEL non-stop scheduled pax service. Given that LAX-MEL = 12748km - I believe it would have been out of range for non-stop 707 scheduled pax services.

Don't think it was ever possible to fly from the West Coast to MEL on a 707 with fewer than 2 stops, and often 3 as there weren't many, if any, routes to MEL in those days that didn't also require a connection at SYD.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 17): Below is a list of 787 routes that cannot realistically be flown by any other aircraft of similar size:

You lumped NRTJFK with NRTBOS in the Same list, implying 787 is the game changer for them

I don't see which part of NRTJFK requires a 787 unless u wanna launch a 6x daily shuttle by a single airline

Quoting a380787 (Reply 39): You lumped NRTJFK with NRTBOS in the Same list, implying 787 is the game changer for them

Who is 'them'? I didn't mean to imply anything other than what I said: That the route can't be completed by another aircraft of its size*.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 39): I don't see which part of NRTJFK requires a 787 unless u wanna launch a 6x daily shuttle by a single airline

I think there are only three airlines on that route and two of them offer two frequencies and the other offers one. As one of them is JAL (and offers the 787) I presume they didn't feel comfortable with a second 777 flight but felt comfortable with the size of a 787. Maybe DL wants to go from a 747 on the route to two 787s down the road? Maybe UA wants to operate it at some point? Maybe Skymark (when not flying an A380) or another small airline? I don't begin to know the circumstances but it isn't a case of 6x daily by a single airline.

And again it wasn't my point. I was listing actual 787 routes (routes that 787s are scheduled to fly) that can't be flown by 767s and A330s. So the next viable choice is a 777 and a 777 is too big for a lot of airlines/routes/additional frequencies.

tortugamon

*and is a twin.

Quoting zeke (Reply 32): You need to be careful with Boeing numbers, particular with respect to payload

I am using Piano-X models. I was fortunate recently when riding on a 788 to chat with one of the pilots who when I explained my enthusiast status provided some very precise data points for that specific flight. such as ZFW , planned flight time , fuel load , reserves and payload (within about .5t) . I was able to back check Piano- X against this and it was very close. In fact I had to reduce the SFC value to a little less than 1.00 to get a better fit. The data put the DOW at a little over 122t. for a configuration similar to UA/BA

MEX-CDG (The eastbound leg challenged by MEX altitude and westbound by headwinds)
NRT-MEX ( nonstop if memory serves right)

Were only possible with the small and thus unprofitable 762 or a wingletted 763 under certain favorable conditions.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 34): The 787 had a very different way of thinking in that it is the first aircraft to be made primarily out of CFRP. The first with an electric architecture. And the first to use forego bleed air to allow the engines to hopefully be more efficient.

Can you honestly say that is true for the 787, you cannot think of other aircraft where this has been done before ?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 34): Couple that with the technology in the cockpit which is more evolutionary but very important stuff and I would say on a whole its a significant change that is very rare in an otherwise conservative business.

What is on the 787 which is not available on an Airbus or bizjet ? I can list a few things not on the 787 like overrun protection, brake to vacate, auto tcas which are not on the 787...

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 34): I personally don't see the A350 technology as being that much advanced than the 787 because in many ways they didn't push the envelope (electric architecture, CFRP tube vs panels, etc) which may end up being a very good idea.

A lot of aircraft have used an electric architecture for a long time, the A320 was known as 420 computers flying in close formation. Using electrics on the scale they have for the pressurization is evolutionary, been used on piston aircraft before.

There are advantages and disadvantages to barrel vs panel design, panel design is better when it come to stretching.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37): True, the A343 does have more range. I should have added 'twin' to the mix or maybe just added 'efficient aircraft'. Its outside of the realistic range of the A330 and the 767. A 787 taking over for an A340 will provide some excellent economics for the operator.

Do you consider the purchase price in your economic model ? or does economics only include direct operating costs ?

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 41): I am using Piano-X models. I was fortunate recently when riding on a 788 to chat with one of the pilots who when I explained my enthusiast status provided some very precise data points for that specific flight. such as ZFW , planned flight time , fuel load , reserves and payload (within about .5t) . I was able to back check Piano- X against this and it was very close. In fact I had to reduce the SFC value to a little less than 1.00 to get a better fit. The data put the DOW at a little over 122t. for a configuration similar to UA/BA

Thats fine, what was the actual OEW they were using, should be on the load sheet as well as the ZFW and the underload. The weight of the furniture, be it in the cabin the the form of seats, or under floor in terms of cargo is not well accounted for in many of the marketing documents does not matter where it comes from.

The 77L example above Boeing lists the OEW as 145,150kg, when in real life it is 160,416kg, significant change in revenue payload.

The reason why I am asking, over that trip (LAX-MEL), the revenue payload on the A380 would be around 50t, total payload around 90t (cabin furniture catering etc etc). The simple physics of it makes it impossible for a 787-9 to lift 45t of revenue payload over that sector.

Need to nip these sort of statements in the bud, too many people on here cannot move away from what is spat out from something like your model or an ACAPS document and what is real world.

This is something Boeing put together, according to them the 787-9 cannot do 6800 nm with 334 pax and no cargo, it falls short by 300 nm. That seems to make my comment of around 30t more plausible.

LAX-MEL already has A380 and 777 service by QF and VA. UA adding service with a 787 isn't a game changer. It just allows UA to cut capacity out of MEL (from daily 747 to 6/week 787) without abandoning it.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 40): So the next viable choice is a 777 and a 777 is too big for a lot of airlines/routes/additional frequencies.

To me, for a route to be an example of the 787 game-changing capabilities it'd have to be just not viable (economically, since technically there's nothing a 787 can fly that can't be flown with, say, an A346) with any other aircraft. NRT-BOS might be such a route. DEN-NRT too. But in your list you had things like SCL-MAD, JFK-NRT, LAX-PVG, PEK-ORD, MEL-LAX, etc. that have been successfully flown for years by several airlines with aircraft other than the 787. For example, QF fills up a daily A380 in the MEL-LAX route. How could a 787 be a game-changer on that route?

I think the OP was trying to find, if the 787 is a game changer, what routes does it make viably profitable or technically possible that previous generation aircraft could not do?

So what I am thinking is long thin routes, that 777 is too big for and A332 cant make.

I think that new aircraft just allow the industry to remain in the same growth trend in term of traffic and network development. Imagine what would be the industry with the same aircraft economics than 30 years ago.
So new aircraft are less "game changers" than "trend continuers".

[Edited 2014-02-25 04:49:46]

Quoting bayareapilot (Reply 44): LAX-MEL already has A380 and 777 service by QF and VA. UA adding service with a 787 isn't a game changer. It just allows UA to cut capacity out of MEL (from daily 747 to 6/week 787) without abandoning it.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 45): For example, QF fills up a daily A380 in the MEL-LAX route. How could a 787 be a game-changer on that route?

UA doesn't have the traffic to support a dedicated 747 or 777 on MEL-SYD. If they did, they would have done it. Instead they had to tag on MEL to their SYD-LAX flights. The 789 capacity isn't much less than the 77E but the economics allow UA to be competitive on the route when they previously couldn't.

The 787 allows them to right size the route with a smaller aircraft and fly it direct. As I said before I don't know what a game changer is. I believe the 787 will allow airlines to fly direct routes that they couldn't previously.

tortugamon

I guess 787's "game changing" comes in 2 forms that's causing confusion :

1. flights that simply has too low demand for any other plane (NRT-SAN or SFO-CTU)

2. flights with sufficient demand, but much lower profitability if flown by larger equipment (e.g. UA's LAX-PVG or LAX-MEL)

tortugamon can split his list into these 2 categories and would be a lot clearer. JL's NRT-JFK simply doesn't belong to the same list as NRT-SAN.