|Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 87):|
The 767 was designed as built as an MOM aircraft. It's stats are exactly what are being talked about. Putting GEnx-2b's might not make it the most efficient aircraft on the block, but they are available and in the power range required and they, along with some aero tweaks, would get another 15% efficiency out of an aircraft which would cost tens of millions of dollars less than a 788 or an A330neo...which are way more aircraft than are needed for the job anyway.
|Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 100):|
My second question, really a hope, would for Matt or someone to plug in 767NEO improvements into his spread sheet and report what sort of CASM, and how it would compare to a 321 and the smallest most efficient 330 (ceo, neo
The GEnX 2B would make it much heavier, thus eroding the advantage on shorter routes. If the 330neo only pays for itself fuel-wise on >2k nm sectors and the T700>T7000 swap is less weight gain than a CF6-80C2>GEnX, then I'd wager that the breakeven for a 767MAX is >2500 nm. Probably not worth it.
|Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 90):|
but what is the problem of using a plane of the size of the MOM/NAM in long haul routes? Don´t you think that there a re routes thancan´t justify a 787/A330/767 size aircraft but that could be performed bya smaller aircraft. I am talking about thin routes for secondary cities, for example. Maybe we don´t have such type of routes today due to the simple fact we don´t have this kind of aircraft. Maybe there is a potential market for this, don´t you think?
There may be, but obviously not enough for an OEM to bet $10B on it.
|Quoting georgiabill (Reply 98):|
Should Boeing take another look at the 787-3 as a possible solution to the A321LR. Yes a bigger plane but with more seats and more range?
|Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):|
It sold to NH and JL and might have sold to others if it had not soon became apparent that even on 500km stage lengths the 787-8's significancy superior aero made it more fuel efficient despite the significantly higher empty weight so everyone went with the -8 (including NH and JL).
Bingo. The 783 is worse than the 788, which is evenly matched to the current 321. The 787 is a long-haul frame, any derivative will be too heavy to beat N/B CASM.
|Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 113):|
That's the design offered in 2004. What if it were offered again with folding wingtips like those on the 777-9?
At best, it would match the 788 on aero, but still be too heavy. As the 788 is about even with a 321, this design wouldn't fly
Any sort of 767neo will not work, it's simply too heavy. There are two ways to look at this:
The 767 was worse than the 330 (at least 763 vs 333)
The 330neo is still a few % worse than the 788
The 788 is even on CASM with a 321ceo
A 767neo will suffer more than a 330neo (see above)
If the 321neo is ~15% better than a ceo, it's the same amount better than a 788, which is itself 15-20% better than a 767ceo
A 763ceo can close maybe 10-15% of the gap to the 787, leaving 5-10% remaining on the table
Conclusion: 321neo is 15% better CASM than 788, which is 5-10% better than 763neo, so 321neo is ~20% better than 763neo
A 757 beats the equivalent 767 (i.e. 752 vs 762, 753 vs 763) on CASM by 5-10%
A 321neo beats the 752 by 25% and thus the 763 by 30-35%
A 763neo can claw back maybe 10% on 3-4k sectors
Conclusion: the 321neo beats the 763neo by 20ish%
Let's let the 767neo die. It's just too heavy.