787 - So Far It Is NOT Being Used Point-to-Point

jetblue1965 · Tue May 12, 2015 9:44 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98):
SFO-CTU
SFO is a UA hub, solidifying the hub

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98):
DEN-NRT

Both UA hubs, solidifying the hubs

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98):
LAX-MEL
LAX is a UA hub, solidifying the hub

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98):
NRT-SAN
NRT is a UA hub, solidifying the hub

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98):
I just listed 4 scenarios in which a previously necessary hub is now bypassed (aka "busted")

How does having a hub at one end (or both) bust a hub?

NRT-SAN is a JL flight. The busting part comes from not having to fly a connection, such as NRT-(LAX)-SAN. It that case, it busted SAN.

Only extreme cases like Norwegian's LGW-FLL can be true "hub busting" .... but even that is stretching it since LGW is gradually becoming a Norwegian focus city.

Even short-haul ULCCs rarely ever have true p2p hub-busting routes, so it is delusional to think any long-haul plane would ever achieve p2p for a majority of their flights.

MrHMSH · Tue May 12, 2015 10:01 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 100):
NRT-SAN is a JL flight. The busting part comes from not having to fly a connection, such as NRT-(LAX)-SAN. It that case, it busted SAN.

Only extreme cases like Norwegian's LGW-FLL can be true "hub busting" .... but even that is stretching it since LGW is gradually becoming a Norwegian focus city.

Even short-haul ULCCs rarely ever have true p2p hub-busting routes, so it is delusional to think any long-haul plane would ever achieve p2p for a majority of their flights.

LCCs have bases rather than hubs. DY are obviously based in OSL, they have big operations at ARN, CPH and LGW, but from those bases they fly people who want to fly from those airports to the destination. DY do have connections, but LGW is clearly a base rather than hub, and I consider all of DY's flights from LGW, long and short haul to be P2P.

I'll take an example local to me:

EZY fly to AGP (Malaga) from:
LGW
STN
LTN
BRS
MAN
NCL
LPL

amongst others. Those are all bases, LGW is EZY's largest. But a route like NCL-AGP is clearly P2P, the people who fly it drive/get a train to NCL, and then get off in AGP. That's P2P.

I'd consider it a hubbing strategy (though not true H2H) if you flew on BA for example and went NCL-LHR-AGP.

tortugamon · Tue May 12, 2015 10:01 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 100):
NRT-SAN is a JL flight. The busting part comes from not having to fly a connection, such as NRT-(LAX)-SAN. It that case, it busted SAN.

I think you mean LAX here instead of the last SAN.

And I think I would call NRT a hub for JAL so it doesn't really go along with your point. Regardless, I do agree with you that the 787 has reduced the need for hub to hub flights.

tortugamon

jetblue1965 · Tue May 12, 2015 10:19 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 102):

I think you mean LAX here instead of the last SAN.

And I think I would call NRT a hub for JAL so it doesn't really go along with your point. Regardless, I do agree with you that the 787 has reduced the need for hub to hub flights.

Yes, I meant NRT-(LAX)-SAN would skip LAX in the nonstop. The hub being busted is LAX (oneworld partner hub), not the NRT part.

tortugamon · Tue May 12, 2015 10:29 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 103):
Yes, I meant NRT-(LAX)-SAN would skip LAX in the nonstop. The hub being busted is LAX (oneworld partner hub), not the NRT part.

I see your point. One less flight into a hub regardless of whether or not the flight originated from one. I here you.

tortugamon

747megatop · Tue May 12, 2015 10:35 pm

One of the most surprising things; in fact i would wager to say the #1 surprising thing is that the B-787 has failed to open up DEN to international destinations outside of Canada & Mexico fo far. The only exception of course is DEN - NRT on UA's 787. So, other than YYZ, FRA, LHR & NRT you are pretty much looking at minimum 2 stops to any major international destination on the globe which is a major embarrassment for a major metropolitan area with a 6 runway airport built on the largest geographical land area in the US and that too the 4th largest hub of UA. Is it that there is lack of demand or is it that DEN being 1 mile above sea level undermines the performance of even the most efficient of aircraft to not make it profitable? Why has UA not deployed more of it's 787s for more international connectivity out of DEN? Why haven't more B 787 operators like QR for example connected DEN?

BoeingGuy · Tue May 12, 2015 10:42 pm

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 99):
Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98):
SFO-CTU
SFO is a UA hub, solidifying the hub

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98):
DEN-NRT

Both UA hubs, solidifying the hubs

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98):
LAX-MEL
LAX is a UA hub, solidifying the hub

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 98):
NRT-SAN
NRT is a UA hub, solidifying the hub

Again, everyone is taking the point to point thing too anally literal. Boeing did not intend that each end was actually going to be a "point" by the hub-and-spoke definition. It referred to opening up new non stop routes that didn't exist. Each of these above are an example. That's what they meant by point to point. SAN-NRT, not having to connect at LAX, for example.

By the way, NRT-SAN is JL not UA.

Freshside3 · Tue May 12, 2015 11:25 pm

Quoting sldispatcher (Reply 87):
Has the 787 opened up new routes? Absolutely!

Yes, but not as many as they should. CLE/STL/PIT should have some long-haul, in the peak season, but they aren't benefiting. There are places in Asia(i.e. PUS/DAD/CAN/VVO etc.) where things haven't changed, either.

LAX772LR · Tue May 12, 2015 11:32 pm

Quoting GE9X (Reply 13):
AUS is a new route made viable by the rapid growth of Austin. Nothing to do with the 787.

I'd call that a bit of a stretch, particularly seeing as BA had upgauged AUS to a 772ER in their system, only to reconsider and knock it back down to a 788.

Indicative that the market still isn't strong enough yet to justify a larger aircraft, relative to the opportunity cost. I doubt we'd be seeing AUS any time soon, were it not for both the 788 and their immunized j/v with AA.

Clipper101 · Wed May 13, 2015 12:18 am

Found this article dating back to December 14, 2005 (B787 launched in 2004):

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/ar...ill-wants-a-hub-buster-1189976.php

With a definition to a “Hub Buster”, Qantas point of view:

Quote:

Qantas wants a "hub buster," a plane that can make roundtrip flights between London and Sydney, and New York and Sydney, without having to stop at a hub airport for fuel.

Un-quote

In general terms this statement defines a “hub buster” as being able to fly between any two city pairs (hubs or points, does not matter) without the need to land in a hub for fuelling.

[Edited 2015-05-12 18:03:57]

LAX772LR · Wed May 13, 2015 12:22 am

Quoting Freshside3 (Reply 107):
CLE/STL/PIT should have some long-haul

Hmm, ignoring that PIT actually still has scheduled longhaul service (DL to CDG)--- tell me, why "should" (as you put it) these markets have anything longhaul?

While STL does better than most, in truth: neither it nor CLE have particularly strong O&D to Europe, nor particularly high average fares to Europe, relative to the markets that do. So I don't understand the sense of entitlement that seems to be at play here.

Heck, CLE couldn't even sustain yearround service to LON with CO/UA's hub on one end + BD's hub on the other... let along *now*, when neither hub exists.

DolphinAir747 · Wed May 13, 2015 12:35 am

Quoting Clipper101 (Reply 109):
Quote:

Qantas wants a "hub buster," a plane that can make roundtrip flights between London and Sydney, and New York and Sydney, without having to stop at a hub airport for fuel.

Un-quote

In general terms this statement defines a “hub buster” as being able to fly between any two city pairs (hubs or points, does not matter) without the need to land in a hub for fuelling.

QF's statement conflates two very different issues: flight length and market size. SYD lacks flights to JFK and LHR purely due to distance. Were the flight time closer to 12 than to 22 hours, you could be sure that BA, QF, VS, AA, you name it would all be flying these routes and using these major hubs to connect passengers to smaller destinations. A "hub buster" connecting smaller markets would not work except on a few shorthaul routes simply because longhaul routes that do not connect to a hub on either end are too small even for a 220-seater. In QF's case, yes LHR SYD would get nonstop service were it shorter, but say ADL BCN would not because of a small market size and would continue to be served over hubs.

LAX772LR · Wed May 13, 2015 12:39 am

Also keep in mind that that article is 10yrs old... written before the fuel insanity of 2008, before the market fallout of 2009, and before the BA breakup + EK tie-up.

I sincerely doubt that QF feels the same, now.

aerorobnz · Wed May 13, 2015 1:23 am

The 787s at AKL (NZ,CZ,LA, - soon JQ,TN etc) are all used to make existing routes more profitable by utilising an aircraft with much lower operating costs than the A340/772 (similar to the 763 but more seats). It has also been used to boost frequency by going from 4-5 a week 332/763/772 or similar to daily with a 788/789. The -9 has proved to be more than a match for the 772 for most routes. Less payload sure, but not hugely fewer passengers and night and day operating cost savings.

They aren't the big profit-maker 77Ws sure, but few aircraft hold a candle in that regard, and the 787 is keeping airlines on the right side of the red by balancing current costs vs useable payload.

enilria · Wed May 13, 2015 2:00 am

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
One of the hopes (or at least the marketing spin by Boeing) was that the 787 would open up more point to point flying. Thus far it has not

Quoting Phillyramp270 (Reply 3):
Didn't it take awhile for airlines to figure out that the 757 is capable aircraft for some very unique TATL routes?

I don't know of any 757s flying point to point Atlantic routes and they are smaller than the 787. The 787 is too big for point to point unless the operator is an LCC and Norwegian is already using it for point to point LCC routes.

adamh8297 · Wed May 13, 2015 2:10 am

Quoting enilria (Reply 114):
I don't know of any 757s flying point to point Atlantic routes and they are smaller than the 787. The 787 is too big for point to point unless the operator is an LCC and Norwegian is already using it for point to point LCC routes.

seasonal BOS-CDG on AA

81819 · Wed May 13, 2015 2:14 am

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 93):

The difference between the Boeing (787) and the Airbus (A380) strategies was more to do with how route structures would develop into the future. Airbus placed their bets on the hub and spoke model whereas Boeing took a bet both ways with the 787 and the point to point model and 748i with hub and spoke.

Like it or not the A380 and 787 use a suite of technologies and materials that are available to both OEM's. At the end of the day strategy and timing are just as important as technology and materials. I think Boeing had the right strategy and timing, but executed the 787 program poorly.

KD5MDK · Wed May 13, 2015 2:20 am

I was imagining flights like BOS-CDG on AA/UA as possible 787 P2P routes.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 105):
So, other than YYZ, FRA, LHR & NRT you are pretty much looking at minimum 2 stops to any major international destination on the globe which is a major embarrassment for a major metropolitan area with a 6 runway airport built on the largest geographical land area in the US and that too the 4th largest hub of UA.

I think you mean 1 stop.

If I wanted to get to VIE from DEN it's one stop: DEN-FRA-VIA.
If I wanted to get to PVG from DEN it's one stop: DEN-NRT-PVG.
If I wanted to get to DEL from DEN it's one stop: DEN-LHR-DEL.

What major destination is more than 1 stop from DEN in this route network?

Aither · Wed May 13, 2015 2:55 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 97):
Yes and what happened to United's NRT hub?

Errr... the emergence of China and the deregulation in the number of direct flights ?
It's not the "super 787" killing the NRT hub.

You could see from the last 10 messages it was "American time". Guys, it's not good to surf the web at work

[Edited 2015-05-12 19:57:54]

LN-KGL · Wed May 13, 2015 6:26 am

Quoting enilria (Reply 114):
Norwegian is already using it for point to point LCC routes.

A part of the passengers on flights like the twice weekly OSL-LAX terminate their trip at both ends (point-to-point), but at their OSL hub they offer connections to domestic destinations (AES, ALF, BDU, BGO, BOO, EVE, HAU, KRS, MOL, SVG, TOS and TRD) and international (ARN, CPH, HEL, ...) - all these are of the type one stop point-to-hub-to-point flights. At some of the domestic destinations like BGO you have more options if you want to fly to LAX, this since BGO have many daily flights to two other DY hubs with 787 flights to LAX (CPH and LGW) and therefore DY can offer one stop flights between BGO and LAX four weekdays westbound and six weekdays eastbound.

Since we are talking about LAX flights; two of the routes are of the pioneering type ARN-LAX and OSL-LAX. CPH-LAX is not such a type since SAS flew between the cities already in 1954, not a direct flight though but with two stops to refuel. The number of daily flights LON-LAX I don't know. The four weekly LGW-LAX is only a small addition in capacity between the two cities, but it seems to be welcomed with loads north of 90%.

mjoelnir · Wed May 13, 2015 6:41 am

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 106):
Again, everyone is taking the point to point thing too anally literal.

Of course, one would than have to say hub to point, does not sound as well. It is really childish to declare that P2P means something else than P2P. The reality was that P2P was an advertisement gimmick by Boeing not based in the reality. Now that it is called out suddenly P2P does not mean P2P.

Planeflyer · Wed May 13, 2015 8:57 am

Quoting EPA001

Yeah, in the high days of the B787 myth creating that was advocated by some. And as always the reality is telling the real story. The B787 is a very good aircraft, but just the next step en evolution of civil airliners

The reality is that the high times are yet to come.There re close to 2000 767 and 330 to be replaced over the next 20 years. 787 will win vast majority of these. Boeing from the beginning said 787 would be a 767 with 20% higher efficiency which means more direct flights.

Despite their execution issues the plane will be a huge success because they called the market correctly..... that is until they blew and decided on the 748. Yikes, has anybody been fired for this terrible decision?

81819 · Wed May 13, 2015 9:19 am

Quoting Planeflyer (Reply 121):
Despite their execution issues the plane will be a huge success because they called the market correctly..... that is until they blew and decided on the 748. Yikes, has anybody been fired for this terrible decision?

As per my post above, Boeing had a bet both ways. I think we have to remember the market is a dynamic. For instance if consolidation of the market occurred the VLA would have come into its own element.

Boeing would have been left with egg on its face if it didn't have a plane in that market segment. The 748i was Boeing's foot in the door if the market dynamic went the VLA route.

I would put the cost to development the 747-8 as Cost of Sales!

Planeflyer · Wed May 13, 2015 9:56 am

Travelhound, I think B had all the info they needed to know the VLA market was barely able to sustain even one supplier. This will go down as one of the worst new product decisions made by a Fortune 500 company.

Aither · Wed May 13, 2015 1:49 pm

Quoting Planeflyer (Reply 121):
over the next 20 years. 787 will win vast majority of these. Boeing from the beginning said 787 would be a 767 with 20% higher efficiency which means more direct flights.

Average fuel price during the 767 period was more than 20% lower than what it currently is. I would rather say the 787 and any new aircraft are mostly allowing routes to not close... while market growth and deregulation creates new routes opportunities.

roseflyer · Wed May 13, 2015 2:52 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 106):
Again, everyone is taking the point to point thing too anally literal.

Of course, one would than have to say hub to point, does not sound as well. It is really childish to declare that P2P means something else than P2P. The reality was that P2P was an advertisement gimmick by Boeing not based in the reality. Now that it is called out suddenly P2P does not mean P2P.

I don't believe that it was an advertising gimmick. I posted quite a few routes that are point to point on various airlines. Routes like Cali to Madrid on avianca or Cairns to Osaka on jetstar fit every definition of point to point that I have ever heard,

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 97):

There are tons of point to point routes not involving an airline hub flown with the 787. I would love to see how some one could say Wuhan China to Gold Coast Australia starring soon is not point to point. There are some spoke to spoke routes too. BKK-NGO in JAL, PVG-BOS on Hainan, CLO-MAD or MDE-MAD on avianca, EIN-AUA on arkefly, CWL-BGI on Thomson, BNE-HNL or OOL-WUH or other routes on jetstar.

BoeingGuy · Wed May 13, 2015 2:54 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 106):
Again, everyone is taking the point to point thing too anally literal.

Of course, one would than have to say hub to point, does not sound as well. It is really childish to declare that P2P means something else than P2P. The reality was that P2P was an advertisement gimmick by Boeing not based in the reality. Now that it is called out suddenly P2P does not mean P2P.

Again, for the third time, that is not what they meant. Why is this so difficult? The context did not mean that ANA was going to use the 787 on routes like FAT-NGO. It meant P2P in the general since, not what nitpickers think it means on A.net.

We are only reply 125 of a meaningless thread.

mats01776 · Wed May 13, 2015 2:55 pm

I always thought "point-to-point" is a passenger's view of not having to deal with a "change of equipment"
between the origin and the destination in an itinerary.

When I fly from airport A to airport B, I could not care less whether A or B is a hub for an airline or not.

To me, arguing whether an airport is a "hub" or a "point" is confusing the two different concepts:
That of an airline's route system and that of each passenger's purpose of the trip.

[Edited 2015-05-13 08:30:21]

BoeingGuy · Wed May 13, 2015 3:23 pm

Quoting mats01776 (Reply 127):
I always thought "point-to-point" is a passenger's view of not having to deal with a "change of equipment"
between the origin and destination in an itinerary.

When I fly from airport A to airport B, I could not care less whether A or B is a hub or not
for a airline.

To me, arguing whether an airport is a "hub" or a "point" is confusing the two different concepts:
That of an airline's route system and that of each passenger's purpose of the trip.

Well said. But we've needed 126 postings to finally grasp this. SJC-NRT, SAN-NRT, SFO-WUH, etc are great examples of what the 787 is designed and is being used for.

speedbored · Wed May 13, 2015 3:29 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 128):
Well said. But we've needed 126 postings to finally grasp this.

No, I said pretty much the same way back in post 74

enilria · Wed May 13, 2015 3:32 pm

Quoting adamh8297 (Reply 115):
Quoting enilria (Reply 114):
I don't know of any 757s flying point to point Atlantic routes and they are smaller than the 787. The 787 is too big for point to point unless the operator is an LCC and Norwegian is already using it for point to point LCC routes.

seasonal BOS-CDG on AA

If that's the whole list I rest my case.

Quoting LN-KGL (Reply 119):
A part of the passengers on flights like the twice weekly OSL-LAX terminate their trip at both ends (point-to-point), but at their OSL hub they offer connections to domestic destinations

Norwegian is flying to LGW with no connections from the USA are they not?

747megatop · Wed May 13, 2015 5:02 pm

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 117):
I think you mean 1 stop

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 117):
What major destination is more than 1 stop from DEN in this route network?

My bad; but still DEN seems to be underserved with international connections for a major metro like Denver; especially it being a major United hub. You would expect to see more destinations served non stop. But a journey out of DEN could easily become 2 stop out of DEN if you are not flying UA/LH or BA. Since this thread is about B 787; the reason i mentioned DEN is because it is surprising that only international non stop has been announced out of DEN. So, i am trying to understand (repeating myself here) - Is it a lack of demand? or Is the high altitude a factor that significantly degrades performance of even the most efficient of aircraft to erode yields?

N62NA · Wed May 13, 2015 5:07 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 114):

I don't know of any 757s flying point to point Atlantic routes and they are smaller than the 787.

According to some who have posted in this topic, a flight from a hub to a non-hub is "point-to-point" so virtually all UA internation flights from EWR (for example) are "point-to-point" flights! Wow!

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):
The reality was that P2P was an advertisement gimmick by Boeing not based in the reality. Now that it is called out suddenly P2P does not mean P2P.

Exactly.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 126):
We are only reply 125 of a meaningless thread.

Thanks for calling my topic meaningless. It's only received over a 100 posts and over 20,000 views. Clearly junk, of no interest to anyone here and not at all a suitable topic.

[Edited 2015-05-13 10:08:47]

Clipper101 · Wed May 13, 2015 5:08 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 128):
But we've needed 126 postings to finally grasp this

You mean 126 - Reply 109 = 125

mffoda · Wed May 13, 2015 5:15 pm

Quoting Planeflyer (Reply 123):
This will go down as one of the worst new product decisions made by a Fortune 500 company.

Very doubtful...

Since Fortune magazine first published the "Fortune 500" in 1955, 86% of those companies on that list have Failed. Only 71 of those original companies on still on the list today and Boeing is one of them...

http://traderhabits.com/86-of-the1955-fortune-500-have-failed/

fixed link...

[Edited 2015-05-13 10:33:51]

Remove the from the link. Tried to edit, but didn't work.

[Edited 2015-05-13 10:37:36]

[Edited 2015-05-13 10:38:26]

747megatop · Wed May 13, 2015 5:34 pm

Quoting N62NA (Reply 132):
, a flight from a hub to a non-hub is "point-to-point" so virtually all UA internation flights from EWR (for example) are "point-to-point" flights!

Funny that you mention it. It is actually true. It is a natural evolution in aircraft technology that has enabled that. Perfect example is EWR-DEL/BOM non stops. 15 or 20 years ago these routes did not exist and you would have to go via FRA/LHR/AMS etc. But now passengers can go point to point from EWR to DEL or BOM (note that all 3 are hub airports) without stopping at an intermediate hub. Similarly 30+ years back a lot of the international non stops out of EWR were probably not there and served 1 stop via some other hub; but as twins came along many of the city pairs became point-to-point non-stops.

Ditto for DEN-NRT which was earlier served via a stop in SEA on a T7 (IIRC this continued on to SIN since i recall my dad taking SIN-NRT-SEA in 2000). Now the route is served non stop; this made being possible by the 787.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):
The reality was that P2P was an advertisement gimmick by Boeing not based in the reality. Now that it is called out suddenly P2P does not mean P2P.

Not true. DEN-NRT, LHR-AUS, LAX-MEL, SAN-NRT, BOS-NRT, SJC-NRT being operated year round would have been a distant dream in the era of the 747. The natural evolution towards more efficient twin jets has made these routes possible. As the aircraft technology evolves further and more efficient twin jet variants come out expect to see more international connectivity out of airports like SAN,SJC,PHX,DEN etc.

mffoda · Wed May 13, 2015 5:42 pm

I gave up on editing my previous post. And try re-posting it here...

http://traderhabits.com/86-of-the1955-fortune-500-have-failed/

tortugamon · Wed May 13, 2015 5:43 pm

Quoting Planeflyer (Reply 123):
Travelhound, I think B had all the info they needed to know the VLA market was barely able to sustain even one supplier. This will go down as one of the worst new product decisions made by a Fortune 500 company.

I disagree. The decision to launch the 748 de-risked the widebody program at Boeing in case the market changed and it helps to keep the A380 price low. If we did not see the economy that we saw and the air cargo shipping industry deflate like we did this could have been a different outcome.

The program has been making money on each unit they deliver and RC said yesterday that they can make money even if they drop the rate to 12/month meaning the closure of the line isn't imminent IMO. 125 units isn't terrible and I think they have a few more dozen to go.

If the program was executed properly the total cost would have been much much less. So I don't think it was the 'worse new product decisions' but it certainly was a execute f-up.

tortugamon

speedbored · Wed May 13, 2015 5:52 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 137):
125 units isn't terrible and I think they have a few more dozen to go.

So, about 2 or 3 more months worth? ...

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 137):
even if they drop the rate to 12/month

tortugamon · Wed May 13, 2015 6:45 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 138):
So, about 2 or 3 more months worth? ...

I have the program limping into the 2020s. If freight market continues on its pace then maybe a touch longer but it is not long for this world.

tortugamon

mjoelnir · Wed May 13, 2015 8:15 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 126):
Again, for the third time, that is not what they meant. Why is this so difficult? The context did not mean that ANA was going to use the 787 on routes like FAT-NGO. It meant P2P in the general since, not what nitpickers think it means on A.net.

We are only reply 125 of a meaningless thread.

Again you are scrambling. Your big point is that point to point does not mean point to point, but whatever fits at the time to confuse the argument.

Yes the 787 is a great frame. Yes it will open new routes. But it is not used point to point.

81819 · Wed May 13, 2015 8:19 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 139):
Quoting speedbored (Reply 138):
So, about 2 or 3 more months worth? ...

I have the program limping into the 2020s. If freight market continues on its pace then maybe a touch longer but it is not long for this world.

tortugamon

There are quite a few 747 dedicated cargo carriers still operating the 747-400. Cathay Pacific and Cargolux have both expressed a desire to eventually migrate to an all 747-8F fleet and quite a few others are operating older versions of the 744F. They will have to eventually order new aircraft!

We have to remember, not only is the freighter market in a cyclical down turn, there is a fundamental oversupply of 747F capacity in the market. Some of the excess stock is still relatively new, so until those aircraft filter through the system there is going to be reduced opportunity for new build 747-8F's.

I don't have a link, but if I remember correctly there is approximately sixty 744 and 748 freighters sitting in the deserts.

[Edited 2015-05-13 13:42:55]

BoeingGuy · Wed May 13, 2015 8:19 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 140):

Again you are scrambling. Your big point is that point to point does not mean point to point, but whatever fits at the time to confuse the argument.

Yes the 787 is a great frame. Yes it will open new routes. But it is not used point to point.

Again, yourself and others on A.net are bastardizing what point to point means. Boeing literal to the point where it's laughable to say, "Oh the 787 isn't really living up to it's P2P promises."

speedbored · Wed May 13, 2015 8:19 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 139):
I have the program limping into the 2020s. If freight market continues on its pace then maybe a touch longer but it is not long for this world.

Sorry - I should have been a bit more obvious with the joke. I was taking the micky out of your obvious typo of suggesting they will drop the rate to 12 per month. I presume you meant 12 per year

tortugamon · Wed May 13, 2015 8:54 pm

Quoting speedbored (Reply 143):
Sorry - I should have been a bit more obvious with the joke.

I honestly read it three times thinking that I was missing something!

Its these crazy 737/A320 47-60/month and A330/787 10-14 per month rates that have me all jaded.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 141):
There are quite a few 747 dedicated cargo carriers who are still operating the 747-400. Cathay Pacific and Cargolux have both expressed a desire to eventually migrate to an all 747-8F fleet and quite a few others are operating older versions of the 744F. They will have to eventually order new aircraft!

I count 138 744Fs that were in fleets last year. I think some 744s will be converted freighters and even more will be replaced by 777Fs. I wonder how many of the existing 744F operators truly require the front opening door for oddsized cargo.

Don't get me wrong, I do export more orders and I think Boeing will need to hold in there for a couple years to get them.

tortugamon

roseflyer · Wed May 13, 2015 9:23 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 140):
Yes the 787 is a great frame. Yes it will open new routes. But it is not used point to point.

Please explain how Thomson, Avianca, Jetstar, Arkefly, JAL and Jetairfly are operating if you don't think their 787s are flying point to point. I am confused. It is being used in the spoke to spoke sense of the term point to point. I can easily find a dozen new routes that absolutely are point to point. The 787 is being used hub to hub, spoke to spoke and hub to spoke. It is a versatile airplane that is doing all those different types of routes. See my quote below:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 125):

There are tons of point to point routes not involving an airline hub flown with the 787. I would love to see how some one could say Wuhan China to Gold Coast Australia starring soon is not point to point. There are some spoke to spoke routes too. BKK-NGO in JAL, PVG-BOS on Hainan, CLO-MAD or MDE-MAD on avianca, EIN-AUA on arkefly, CWL-BGI on Thomson, BNE-HNL or OOL-WUH or other routes on jetstar.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 132):

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):
The reality was that P2P was an advertisement gimmick by Boeing not based in the reality. Now that it is called out suddenly P2P does not mean P2P.

Exactly.

But that just isn't true. Cairns to Osaka or Cali to Madrid or one of the many other routes are pure spoke to spoke. Everyone would agree that those are point to point routes. Lots of others are marginal hub to spoke and also point to point.

[Edited 2015-05-13 14:33:33]

mham001 · Wed May 13, 2015 10:06 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 140):
But it is not used point to point.

It is. You've been given a list, twice.

BoeingGuy · Wed May 13, 2015 10:26 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 146):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 140):
But it is not used point to point.

It is. You've been given a list, twice.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):

Of course, one would than have to say hub to point, does not sound as well. It is really childish to declare that P2P means something else than P2P. The reality was that P2P was an advertisement gimmick by Boeing not based in the reality. Now that it is called out suddenly P2P does not mean P2P.

mjoelnir seems to have this bizarre need to nitpick the literal sense of the phrase "point to point" to disprove Boeing and the 787. I've probably now explained at least 4 times that wasn't what was meant by the 787 "advertising".

81819 · Wed May 13, 2015 10:36 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 140):
Yes the 787 is a great frame. Yes it will open new routes. But it is not used point to point.

If I put my lawyer hat on, I would have to ask what is the legal definition of "point to point" ?

As another poster posted it is a metaphor for passengers flying directly from their origin to destination on a single aircraft and with out a stop-over at another airport.

I make a motion that we define Point to Point (P2P) as:

The direct travel distance between two set points, where the first point is the origin and the other the destination.

sldispatcher · Wed May 13, 2015 10:57 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 148):
I make a motion that we define Point to Point (P2P) as:The direct travel distance between two set points, where the first point is the origin and the other the destination.

I second the motion.

As far as I'm concerned, the ability to negate a stop along a route creates a new point-to-point route. DEN-NRT and LHR-AUS are two perfect examples where in transit hub stops were required. To further elaborate, DEN-NRT-XXX might have once required DEN-SFO-NRT-XXX without the new point to point route.

I don't think anyone would argue if WN started BNA-SJC and avoided a MDW or DEN or LAX or LAS transit that that would indeed qualify as a new P2P route.

So other than a person doing so to stir the pot and be argumentative (and would never survive a debate in a college classroom situation on said subject), they simply cannot see the forest for the trees. New nonstop routes in a high cost fuel environment. As far as I'm concerned, every time one of the ME3 open a new route from their hub to a US city that is...wait for it..a new point to point route! Whether it starts from a hub or not is sort of irrelevant to me..it's a new route between two points. I think for all of our sanity, we probably need to class new routes into:
Hub to Hub
Hub to Spoke / Spoke to Hub
Spoke to Spoke

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net