Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
united319
Topic Author
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:07 am

Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:21 pm

I've noticed many carriers are not using the 787 to one of the key things in it's design...range. Some foreign carriers use them on short hops like ANA. UA is getting better but still the only handful of ULH routes I know of that it does are....

NRT-BOS
IAH-LOS
LAX-MEL
MEX-NRT


I do understand the shorter long haul flights for thin routes like:

NRT-SJC
KIX-SJC
NRT-SAN
LHR-PHL

But then I see carriers flying it on routes that don't make sense to me (Capacity and Range wise) like:

BOG-LIM
LHR-JFK
IAH-LHR
LAX-NRT
MEX-JFK
DEL-DXB
DOH-BLR
SCL-EZE
LHR-EWR

I can understand "breaking in" the planes like UA did when they flew them on routes like IAH-LAX IAH-SFO (still in service for repo's) , IAH-DEN (still in service). Maybe some airlines are also flying them on these odd routes to show off the plane. I know that VS had a big deal at JFK.

This is all just my humle opinion/observation.
It's Time To Fly
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2837
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:31 pm

EY needs something to jump start their DFW service.

Can a 789 make it from AUH - DFW with a decent payload?
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:37 pm

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):
NRT-BOS
IAH-LOS
LAX-MEL
MEX-NRT

IAD-ADD
YYZ-ADD
AUH-IAD
SFO-CTU
NRT-JFK
PEK-BOS
MTY-NRT


787 Routes #9 (Revamped!) (by hkcanadaexpat Sep 26 2014 in Civil Aviation)

I personally do not understand this feeling that the 787 is not being used on long routes.

tortugamon
 
flyiguy
Posts: 1010
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:21 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:38 pm

EY serves AUH - IAD with 787-9
ET serves ADD -IAD with 787-8


FLY
The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 4156
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:40 pm

I think one of the more curious 'short' routes is BOS-LHR with the 787-9. We like seeing it at Logan and a favorite for spotters, but goes against the grain you speak of.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:40 pm

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):

BOG-LIM
LHR-JFK
IAH-LHR
LAX-NRT
MEX-JFK
DEL-DXB
DOH-BLR
SCL-EZE
LHR-EWR

Not every long and ultra-long haul flight fit perfectly time wise (esp when accounting for connections), so cycling the plane through another hub or a regional trunk route can provide excellent downtime utilization. And if you listen to Boeing's pitch that 787 is a 767 replacement, and then look at existing 767 services globally, you'll find tons of examples of short-to-mid haul flights.

UA is using the 787 on LAX-NRT for yield-improvement purposes (sure a 763 can do it but a 788/789 can do it with much much lower CASM).

I wonder if the 788s that ANA are using domestically are paper-derated just to lower the landing fees ...
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:42 pm

The 787 is not really a ULH aircraft. It's a normal long-haul aircraft that can be expected to fly the same mix of routes as any other long-haul aircraft. Yes, the -9 has 8300 nm nominal range, but the MZFW range is closer to 5500 nm. That's roughly the same as the 777-200ER, 777-300ER, and A340-300.

One consequence of better fuel efficiency is that payload-range curves get shallower.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11887
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:43 pm

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):
I've noticed many carriers are not using the 787 to one of the key things in it's design...range.

The key thing of the 787 design is efficiency. Boeing gave it the range to operate basically wherever a 777ER can so it can supplement the 777 in airline's fleets, but that doesn't mean that every airline needs the 787 for its range. QR, for example, doesn't have crew rests on them so they can't fly them longer than 10 hours or something like that- the 787s were ordered for a regional role.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 2):
I personally do not understand this feeling that the 787 is not being used on long routes.

Especially since there are only ~250 in service. Its not like every 787 is going to be a very long haul route.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:45 pm

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):
only handful of ULH routes I know of that it does are....

NRT-BOS
IAH-LOS
LAX-MEL
MEX-NRT

Add DEL - SYD/MEL by AI to the list.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:58 pm

Interesting flightglobal analysis on Boeing 787 route network

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...787-been-a-network-changer-406458/

I think it will give a different perspective in the context of this thread's topic.
 
glbltrvlr
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:28 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:03 pm

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 9):
Interesting flightglobal analysis on Boeing 787 route network

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...787-been-a-network-changer-406458/

I think it will give a different perspective in the context of this thread's topic.


Article is behind a paywall - can you summarize?
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2837
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:04 pm

The 787 is a modern and efficient 767, with a bit more space and range added, or it's a more modern and efficient 777 with a bit less space. It is therefore little wonder, that the type is seen on services previously and presently operated by the 767 and 777. This is the bread and butter of long-haul, and where the bucks are most easily made. ULHs are notoriously difficult to make financially viable, and whilst the 787 makes that job a bit easier, it's still a tough nut to crack.
Signature. You just read one.
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5947
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:11 pm

Norwegian is using their B787-8's on routes from Scandinavia / Europe to

* Bangkok,
* Los Angeles,
* Oakland,
* Orlando,
* New York
* Fort Lauderdale.

New long haul routes will proabaly be announced shortly.

[Edited 2015-04-06 13:24:09]
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:14 pm

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):
I do understand the shorter long haul flights for thin routes like:

NRT-SJC
KIX-SJC
NRT-SAN
LHR-PHL

Add LHR-AUS to that list.
Airlines flown: A3, AA, AC, AF, AM, BA, B6, CA, CO, CX, DL, EA, EL, IB, LH, MI, MQ, NH, NW, NZ, OU, PE, QF, S4, SQ, TP, UA, US, VS, WE, WN
 
avek00
Posts: 3261
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:18 pm

The 787 is too small to make most ULH options economically viable -- those will continue to be the near-exclusive province of larger 77L, 77W, 388, and eventually 777X/350 aircraft.
Live life to the fullest.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:19 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
The 787 is not really a ULH aircraft.

I personally think ULH means 12+ hours of flying and there are more than a handful of those flights being operated by the 787. But I agree that it is not the in the same category as the 77L/A345.

Quoting Polot (Reply 7):
QR, for example, doesn't have crew rests on them so they can't fly them longer than 10 hours or something like that- the 787s were ordered for a regional role.

Not the only one: Scoot, Jetstar, most of ANA's, Virgin right now....lots of operators are using them regionally.

Quoting Polot (Reply 7):
personally do not understand this feeling that the 787 is not being used on long routes.
Especially since there are only ~250 in service.

Good point. Still 25% of new routes opened since the 787 entered service were operated by the 787. Its pretty substantial.

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 10):
Article is behind a paywall - can you summarize?

Its not behind a paywall. You just have to register. Its worth it, good article.

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):
I've noticed many carriers are not using the 787 to one of the key things in it's design...range.

We don't know what they are carrying in their bellies: there are dozens of flights that are longer than the range at MZFW where these could be pushing the limits of 787 capability. There are more LD3 spaces on these aircraft than similarly sized aircraft.

tortugamon
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:21 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
I personally think ULH means 12+ hours of flying and there are more than a handful of those flights being operated by the 787.

Fair enough, although I would define it as 14+ hours. That is the mission profile where the 77L and 345, the two original ULH aircraft, start to make economic sense compared with their larger siblings.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6566
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:27 pm

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):
KIX-SJC

There's no KIX-SJC. Did you mean SJC-PEK?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13993
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:33 pm

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 10):
Article is behind a paywall

Easy get-around: just Google the article's title, then access it via Google's link.

Will get you past a paywall 99% of the time.



Quoting tortugamon (Reply 15):
I personally think ULH means 12+ hours of flying

That's a rather loose definition, seeing as it only amounts to about 5000-5500nm worth of flying, westbound.

We've seen 767s scheduled on flights like that (e.g. VKO-LAX, TLV-MIA, etc) and they're hardly ULH aircraft.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
cha747
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:07 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:43 pm

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):
I do understand the shorter long haul flights for thin routes like:

NRT-SJC
KIX-SJC
NRT-SAN
LHR-PHL

Is LHR-PHL considered a thin route? With now 5 flights a day between the two cities, I'd think that it is more of a "thick" route.
Piedmontgirl was always right
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10821
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:50 pm

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 10):
Article is behind a paywall - can you summarize?

Copy the article header into google search and away you go.
The link below is one of a few that comes up
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...787-been-a-network-changer-406458/

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...vice-how-is-787-performing-405814/
 
Cipango
Posts: 1498
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:55 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:51 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 17):
There's no KIX-SJC. Did you mean SJC-PEK?

More than likely NRT-SJC.

This is still operated by a 787, right?
Let's fly! Unless it's on a CRJ 200, then I'll stay down here.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:58 pm

Quoting glbltrvlr (Reply 10):
Article is behind a paywall - can you summarize?

Not sure how to summarize this interesting article. Let me make an attempt by pasting a key paragraph from it -

"The 24 airlines operating the 787 operate a total of 585 long-haul routes (>5,000km). They have started a total of 55 new 787 routes over the last three years. All new routes are of course long-haul, and it means a 10% increase over the last three years due to the 787."

You will have to read the article yourself because it has some interesting route maps and graphs as well. The link works for me. If it still doesn't come up for you then please try registering first in flightglobal.com
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:04 pm

Quoting Cipango (Reply 21):
More than likely NRT-SJC.

This is still operated by a 787, right?

Still is. Actually NRT-SJC (NH), KIX-SFO (UA), and future PEK-SJC (HU) will all be 787.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:13 pm

About JFK-LHR and LAX-NRT, the 787 can fight off stiff competition by using its incredible fuel efficiency. This is good for smaller players.
 
anstar
Posts: 3377
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:16 pm

Quoting adamh8297 (Reply 13):
Add LHR-AUS to that list.

Who flies the 787 on this route? BA were thinking about it , but as far as I know its still a 772ER route
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5414
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:18 pm

There just aren't that many ULH routes. At least not many that are profitable. I suspect the demand simply isn't there. I've flown Europe to Australia. I've flown East Africa to Mexico. I'd rather fly for 10/12 hours and go to a hotel before continuing than fly for ~16 hours nonstop. Don't blame the airframe. People simply don't want to be canned for that long. I don't.
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5947
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:26 pm

Norwegian has said they are considering to fly to Hawaii. If that is Scandinavia - Hawaii we are looking at I guess around 16-17 hours ?
 
Cipango
Posts: 1498
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:55 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:36 pm

Quoting anstar (Reply 25):
Who flies the 787 on this route? BA were thinking about it , but as far as I know its still a 772ER route

BA have operated it for a year or two now. It wasn't ever operated by a 772 but they announced an up gauge recently to a 772 from 787. That was quietly reverted it now remains a 787 route.

It has been very successful for BA according to many on A.net.

It has been a prime example of an airline using a 787 to test a new route.
Let's fly! Unless it's on a CRJ 200, then I'll stay down here.
 
Cipango
Posts: 1498
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:55 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:41 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 27):
If that is Scandinavia - Hawaii we are looking at I guess around 16-17 hours ?

More 13-14 hours. A long route for low yielding traffic.

Its comparable to London-Singapore, Tokyo-Atlanta and Istanbul-Los Angeles distance wise.
Let's fly! Unless it's on a CRJ 200, then I'll stay down here.
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5947
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:49 pm

Quoting Cipango (Reply 29):
More 13-14 hours.

You're sure ? I was pritty sure it was a longer time than that from Scandinavia ...
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:50 pm

Quoting Cipango (Reply 29):

More 13-14 hours. A long route for low yielding traffic.

Its comparable to London-Singapore, Tokyo-Atlanta and Istanbul-Los Angeles distance wise.

Which is completely fine for Norwegian's business model. Afterall, they excel at Scandinavia to BKK.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:59 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 30):
You're sure ?

Yep. It's almost exactly the same distance as JFK-NRT.
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:04 pm

I actually think the merits of the 787 are evident by the fact that its operating the 19th longest route in operation (MEL-LAX) but still efficient enough to be a short haul Japanese domestic flier. It certainly is not a 77L but it isn't that same liability on short haul either.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 14):
The 787 is too small to make most ULH options economically viable

The 789 is roughly the same cabin length at the 77L that you mention.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 16):
Fair enough, although I would define it as 14+ hours.

You could be more popular there. I just choose long haul to already be a big bucket of 6.5-12 hours so I try to get a more normal distribution. I see your point.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 18):
That's a rather loose definition, seeing as it only amounts to about 5000-5500nm worth of flying

I know its not the common definition on here and I do have wiki on my side but it isn't much of a consolation.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 30):
More 13-14 hours.
You're sure ?

I am! http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=osl-hnl...in%0D%0Anrt-atl%0D%0A&MS=wls&DU=nm

LAX-IST has been coming in at less than 13 hours and occassionally under 12 hours

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/THY10

tortugamon
 
User avatar
SANFan
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:13 pm

Quoting Cipango (Reply 28):
BA have operated it for a year or two now. It wasn't ever operated by a 772 but they announced an up gauge recently to a 772 from 787. That was quietly reverted it now remains a 787 route.

   The route has op'd for just a touch over 1 year now (started 3/31/14 at 5x/wk, then daily beginning May 5.)

Was the u/g to a 772 actually (officially) announced, or just rumored? If the route continues to do well, it would seem a good candidate for at least a 787-9 when they join BA's fleet.

bb
 
jfk777
Posts: 7487
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:13 pm

Quoting united319 (Thread starter):
BOG-LIM
LHR-JFK
IAH-LHR
LAX-NRT
MEX-JFK
DEL-DXB
DOH-BLR
SCL-EZE
LHR-EWR

BOG to LIma, MEX to JFK, are using the plane when it would sit on the ground between long flights. MEX to JFK also provides a very high level of service for AeroMexico on a four hour flight, lots of premium passengers fly to JFK and may be they sell the large J class cabin on the 787.
 
BiggerJetsPlz
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:34 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:18 pm

Another ULH flown by China Southern 787s, http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CSN660, almost 14 hours. And line 34 flies this one occasionally (same from the line 20-35 block, early frames known to have some extra weight)
 
Cipango
Posts: 1498
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:55 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:57 pm

Quoting SANFan (Reply 34):
Was the u/g to a 772 actually (officially) announced, or just rumored? If the route continues to do well, it would seem a good candidate for at least a 787-9 when they join BA's fleet.

AFAIK it was confirmed and loaded into the reservation system.
Let's fly! Unless it's on a CRJ 200, then I'll stay down here.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:42 pm

Quoting Sooner787 (Reply 1):
Can a 789 make it from AUH - DFW with a decent payload?

About the same flight time as LAX-MEL so the answer has to be yes.

[Edited 2015-04-06 16:45:43]
 
dcaviation
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:26 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:49 pm

Quoting flyiguy (Reply 3):
ET serves ADD -IAD with 787-8

There is no ADD - IAD, its FCO - IAD
ET flies IAD - ADD
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Mon Apr 06, 2015 11:51 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 7):
The key thing of the 787 design is efficiency. Boeing gave it the range to operate basically wherever a 777ER can so it can supplement the 777 in airline's fleets, but that doesn't mean that every airline needs the 787 for its range. QR, for example, doesn't have crew rests on them so they can't fly them longer than 10 hours or something like that- the 787s were ordered for a regional role.

A 789 with the same payload and flight time as a 77E burns >21% less fuel.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7405
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:20 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 16):
Fair enough, although I would define it as 14+ hours. That is the mission profile where the 77L and 345, the two original ULH aircraft, start to make economic sense compared with their larger siblings.

Perhaps worthy of note that all of the top 10 longest sectors being flown belong to the 77W and A380 ......

Rgds
 
BiggerJetsPlz
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:34 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:36 am

I see three of the top ten longest routes being on the 772LR (atlanta-johanesburg, and abu dhabi to LA and Dallas)
 
astuteman
Posts: 7405
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:42 am

Quoting BiggerJetsPlz (Reply 42):
I see three of the top ten longest routes being on the 772LR (atlanta-johanesburg, and abu dhabi to LA and Dallas)

Yep. My bad - posted in haste, as I realised afterwards.

Either way an interesting commentary on how the "ULH" market actually pans out in practice..

Rgds
 
User avatar
GCT64
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:15 am

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 11):
The 787 is a modern and efficient 767, with a bit more space and range added, or it's a more modern and efficient 777 with a bit less space.

That's pretty much it and as we see them become more and more common around the world, inevitably only a relatively small proportion will do ULH flights for the simple reason that very few ULH flights make commercial sense.

BTW - on the "becoming more and more common" theme, as my flight at LHR taxied out yesterday there were three 787s in a line on the taxiway behind us (BA to CTU, VS to EWR and RJ to AMM) so they are already becoming pretty commonplace.
Flown in: A20N,A21N,A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A359,A388,BA11,BU31,(..56 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
jfk777
Posts: 7487
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:52 pm

While many airlines are using 787-8 to replace A340 and 767 with some new flights like JAL to Boston. More ULH will happen when the 787-9 becomes more common, United's flight from LAX to MEL. Air Canada is the first airline showing us how they plan to us the 787-9 to Dubai and India nonstop from Toronto. AC is also replacing 777 on their YYZ to Haneda route but who knows AC could continue to surprise us with a route to say Johannesburg.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:00 pm

Until 400+ 787/350s are in the air I don't think we will begin to see the real impact of this class of planes.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19949
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:25 pm

In order to analyse the use of the 787 on 'ULH routes' you first need to define what constitutes ULH. In reality, very few of the World's routes are true ULH - just look at the total sales figures for the two specialist ULH planes (A345 & 77L). ULH is a niche market at best.

The 787 is not a ULH plane. Most widebody flights are less than 4,000nm.

Quoting Polot (Reply 7):
Article is behind a paywall - can you summarize?

It's not a paywall, it's just free registration. However, use the old Internet standard - simply Google the articles headline...
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
anstar
Posts: 3377
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:29 pm

Quoting Cipango (Reply 28):
BA have operated it for a year or two now. It wasn't ever operated by a 772 but they announced an up gauge recently to a 772 from 787. That was quietly reverted it now remains a 787 route.

Oops... I got it the wrong way round! Thanks for clarifying for me.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Why Are There Not More 787's Doing U.L.H.routes?

Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:41 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 41):
Perhaps worthy of note that all of the top 10 longest sectors being flown belong to the 77W and A380 ......

I should have used the past tense.   

I think when the 777-8X shows up we will see ULH sectors being flown by ULH aircraft again. Until then... the 77W and A380 have become just capable enough to warrant "abuse" on ULH.

[Edited 2015-04-07 09:41:57]

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