The B787-8 opened a lot of new, thin routes.
Why were these routes not operated with A330-200s earlier?

Sokes wrote:

The B787-8 opened a lot of new, thin routes.
Why were these routes not operated with A330-200s earlier?

Define “a lot”, and then quantify the number of A330 routes.

Without the data, it is nothing more than your opinion.

I would be very surprised if your opinion is true over the 25 years the approximately 1500 A330 have been in service.

Sokes wrote:

The B787-8 opened a lot of new, thin routes.
Why were these routes not operated with A330-200s earlier?

Because many of the airlines in question didn't have any A330-200s?

ANA, JAL, Air India, American Airlines (prior to the merger), Ethiopian, BA, United, LAN, Aeromexico, Kenya Airways, LOT, El Al and a handful of others all flew the relatively short-legged 767 or A310. Air Canada and Thai only had the A330-300. Norwegian and Scoot didn't even exist at the time, Xiamen was still a short-haul carrier only.

When you look into it, it's really only Qantas and Jetstar that had the A330-200 before and used the 787-8 to open up new thin routes. But Qantas also had a dated fleet of 767s that had to be replaced, so arguably they didn't have excess aircraft to open new routes until the 787s started arriving.

Anybody knows a statistic of number of long range routes flow in the world over time?

zeke wrote:

I would be very surprised if your opinion is true over the 25 years the approximately 1500 A330 have been in service.

Please provide some data, otherwise it's nothing more than your opinion.

But joke aside I tend to agree with you. My assumption is based on what I read long ago in a newspaper or so.
It really doesn't make much sense.

I know I stated my opinion as fact, while you stated your opinion as opinion.

VSMUT wrote:

Sokes wrote:

The B787-8 opened a lot of new, thin routes.
When you look into it, it's really only Qantas and Jetstar that had the A330-200 before and used the 787-8 to open up new thin routes. But Qantas also had a dated fleet of 767s that had to be replaced, so arguably they didn't have excess aircraft to open new routes until the 787s started arriving.

Did Qantas ever operate the 787-8? My recollection is that the -8 was only used by Jetstar.

vfw614 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Sokes wrote:

The B787-8 opened a lot of new, thin routes.
When you look into it, it's really only Qantas and Jetstar that had the A330-200 before and used the 787-8 to open up new thin routes. But Qantas also had a dated fleet of 767s that had to be replaced, so arguably they didn't have excess aircraft to open new routes until the 787s started arriving.

Did Qantas ever operate the 787-8? My recollection is that the -8 was only used by Jetstar.

Yes, only JetStar. QF has only opertaed the -9.

There have been suggestions that the 332 were a near nil cost sweetener to secure QF as an A380 customer. The QF Group tranferred the 332s to mainline when the 788 came online for JetStar.

The 332 is the only widebody currently flying regularly for QF. All 788 and all but 2x789 are in storage.

Sokes wrote:

The B787-8 opened a lot of new, thin routes.
Why were these routes not operated with A330-200s earlier?

Name some routes that first flown by 787-8 (never flown by any other type of aircraft before).

afterburner wrote:

Sokes wrote:

The B787-8 opened a lot of new, thin routes.
Why were these routes not operated with A330-200s earlier?

Name some routes that first flown by 787-8 (never flown by any other type of aircraft before).

Might be wrong on a few of these:

British Airways:
- London to Austin
- London to Pittsburgh (restored)
- London to New Orleans
- London to Charleston
- London to Nashville
- London to San Jose (CA)

American Airlines:
- DFW to Munich
- LAX to Christchurch (2021 restored service)
- Chicago to Athens
- Chicago to Krakow (I think LOT also launched it with the 787?)
- Chicago to Prague (cut before launch)
- Chicago to Budapest (cut before launch)
- Chicago to Venice

United Airlines:
- SFO to Chengdu
- SFO to Hangzhou
- SFO to Xi'An

Xiamen Air:
- Xiamen to Los Angeles
- Xiamen to Vancouver
- Xiamen to Sydney
- Hangzhou to Melbourne
- Shenzhen to Seattle
- Fuzhou to Paris
- Qingdao to Los Angeles

Japan Airlines:
- Tokyo NRT to San Diego

All Nippon Airways:
- Tokyo Narita to San Jose (CA)

@ishrion:
Thank you for saving me from an embarrassing situation.

I assume I'm not the only one who read that the B787-8 enabled a lot of route openings.
I believed that wrong information, therefore my question.
I think I already made it clear in my answer to zeke that my OP doesn't make sense.
It's not fair to corner me further.

However it does raise another question:
Why didn't Airbus produce more A330-200s earlier?
Or did Boeing just happen to be lucky and the B787 got ready just in time for increase in demand?

Kent350787 wrote:

The 332 is the only widebody currently flying regularly for QF. All 788 and all but 2x789 are in storage.

Anybody knows how to explain this?
One should assume that they prefer the B787-8.

Sokes wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

The 332 is the only widebody currently flying regularly for QF. All 788 and all but 2x789 are in storage.

Anybody knows how to explain this?
One should assume that they prefer the B787-8.

All B788 from JQ, plus 9 of the 11 B789 from QF are in storage.

Sokes wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

The 332 is the only widebody currently flying regularly for QF. All 788 and all but 2x789 are in storage.

Anybody knows how to explain this?
One should assume that they prefer the B787-8.

Actually its A330s generally, if not more so the -300s. The engines on the 787s are power by the hour so its cheaper to operate the A330s, additionally the 787 config is very premium heavy and not suitable for current demand / routes.

jrfspa320 wrote:

Actually its A330s generally, if not more so the -300s. The engines on the 787s are power by the hour so its cheaper to operate the A330s, additionally the 787 config is very premium heavy and not suitable for current demand / routes.

I've only been noticing the 332s out of SYD, but can see from actually checking that they're even flying 333s to PER.

Power by the hour is good when you can fill the aircraft with passengers, less so for hauling cargo. The JetStar 788s have been medium haul holiday haulers only.

Sokes wrote:

zeke wrote:

I would be very surprised if your opinion is true over the 25 years the approximately 1500 A330 have been in service.

Please provide some data, otherwise it's nothing more than your opinion.

But joke aside I tend to agree with you. My assumption is based on what I read long ago in a newspaper or so.
It really doesn't make much sense.

I know I stated my opinion as fact, while you stated your opinion as opinion.

I’m sorry under them forum rules it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence when making a statement of fact. I never made a statement of fact, I just called on you to support your assertion.

Kent350787 wrote:

There have been suggestions that the 332 were a near nil cost sweetener to secure QF as an A380 customer. The QF Group tranferred the 332s to mainline when the 788 came online for JetStar.

The 332 is the only widebody currently flying regularly for QF. All 788 and all but 2x789 are in storage.

The A332 was originally with QF as something between the 767/A300/743 replacement, it was operating west coast to AKL. QF were operating the 743 on east/west coast flights.

I regularly see A330s in HKG at the moment doing freighter flights. The sector length between Australia and Asia allow the A330 to be MLW limited over the sectors.

AM also had 788 flying SHA-MEX.

A simple explanation might be that the 788 had the legs and was more efficient for most of those routes while the A332 hadn't and wasn't. It also helped that the Dreamliner was the shiniest toy in the box at the time.

Sokes wrote:

The B787-8 opened a lot of new, thin routes.
Why were these routes not operated with A330-200s earlier?

Dozens of destinations were opened up by A330-200's of KLM, Emirates, Qatar, Delta, Turkish the Chinese airlines for more then two decades. I assume you know.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/ ... n=60&x=wrt

keesje wrote:

Dozens of destinations were opened up by A330-200's of KLM, Emirates, Qatar, Delta, Turkish the Chinese airlines for more then two decades. I assume you know.

Could these routes flown by other aircraft, like 767-300ER?

Kent350787 wrote:

jrfspa320 wrote:

Actually its A330s generally, if not more so the -300s. The engines on the 787s are power by the hour so its cheaper to operate the A330s, additionally the 787 config is very premium heavy and not suitable for current demand / routes.

I've only been noticing the 332s out of SYD, but can see from actually checking that they're even flying 333s to PER.

Power by the hour is good when you can fill the aircraft with passengers, less so for hauling cargo. The JetStar 788s have been medium haul holiday haulers only.

Qantas are only operating A330-300s on commercial passenger and cargo services.

All A330-200s are in storage, but have been moving recently as they are being flown from AVV to BNE where they are undergoing maintenance, and then flown from BNE to SYD where they are re-entering storage.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Qantas are only operating A330-300s on commercial passenger and cargo services.

All A330-200s are in storage, but have been moving recently as they are being flown from AVV to BNE where they are undergoing maintenance, and then flown from BNE to SYD where they are re-entering storage.

Maybe I'd noticed some 332 shuffling in SYD. But definitely no 788s operating for QF group, and they didn't open up any new long thin groups. JL seems to be the only airline currently sending 788 to Sydney, downguaged from 789 - even previous 788 operator Xiamen is mostly sending 789.

afterburner wrote:

keesje wrote:

Dozens of destinations were opened up by A330-200's of KLM, Emirates, Qatar, Delta, Turkish the Chinese airlines for more then two decades. I assume you know.

Could these routes flown by other aircraft, like 767-300ER?

The routes to / from China not. Specially because cargo played a significant role when opening up those routes. Similar seized A340-200/-300s had that role in the early 90's, with many carrierd.

keesje wrote:

afterburner wrote:

keesje wrote:

Dozens of destinations were opened up by A330-200's of KLM, Emirates, Qatar, Delta, Turkish the Chinese airlines for more then two decades. I assume you know.

Could these routes flown by other aircraft, like 767-300ER?

The routes to / from China not. Specially because cargo played a significant role when opening up those routes. Similar seized A340-200/-300s had that role in the early 90's, with many carrierd.

Delta's SEA-PEK/PVG flights were launched using the 767-300ERs.

Sokes wrote:

However it does raise another question:
Why didn't Airbus produce more A330-200s earlier?
Or did Boeing just happen to be lucky and the B787 got ready just in time for increase in demand?

What do you mean? Airbus sold 701 A330-200s, vs 422 of the 787-8. It was the best selling A330 variant by a big margin in the mid-to-late 2000s.

VSMUT wrote:

Sokes wrote:

However it does raise another question:
Why didn't Airbus produce more A330-200s earlier?
Or did Boeing just happen to be lucky and the B787 got ready just in time for increase in demand?

What do you mean? Airbus sold 701 A330-200s, vs 422 of the 787-8. It was the best selling A330 variant by a big margin in the mid-to-late 2000s.

I mean to say:
Why didn't Airbus build more between 1998 and 2011, the year B787 entered service?
I suppose it really is a question of demand. Aviation expanded a lot the last years.

But yes, I really fell for the media hype. The B787 is a good plane, but it didn't revolutionize aviation.

Sokes wrote:

I mean to say:
Why didn't Airbus build more between 1998 and 2011, the year B787 entered service?
I suppose it really is a question of demand. Aviation expanded a lot the last years.

I still don't get your point. Airbus delivered 501 of the A330-200 from 1998 to 2012 (484 if you subtract freighters). That's not bad, it's more than Boeing managed to sell 787-8s. It's only 99 planes short of the total production run of passenger 767-300ERs, which the A330-200 would surpass by 2015.

Sokes wrote:

But yes, I really fell for the media hype. The B787 is a good plane, but it didn't revolutionize aviation.

That's true, Boeing ran a massive PR campaign, something we've also seen with the 777X. The 787 is a phenomenal aircraft, but it is evolutionary, not revolutionary. It seemed more revolutionary than it was because it essentially filled a hole in Boeings portfolio, but it was something Airbus had covered since the 90s. Those new long routes were largely opened by airlines who didn't have the equivalent Airbus offering.
There was also the 3 year delay the 787 suffered. Had airlines known from the outset that they would be stuck with their ageing fleets of 767s for that much longer, it is likely that a handful would have gone for the A330.

VSMUT wrote:

There was also the 3 year delay the 787 suffered. Had airlines known from the outset that they would be stuck with their ageing fleets of 767s for that much longer, it is likely that a handful would have gone for the A330.

Which explains why aircraft programs are mostly delayed several years.

Ishrion wrote:

afterburner wrote:

Sokes wrote:

The B787-8 opened a lot of new, thin routes.
Why were these routes not operated with A330-200s earlier?

Name some routes that first flown by 787-8 (never flown by any other type of aircraft before).

Might be wrong on a few of these:


United Airlines:
- SFO to Chengdu
- SFO to Hangzhou
- SFO to Xi'An

(CA)

UA launched all these, but only Chengdu remains. Xian and Hangzhou failed long before COVID. So yes the 788 made some of these possible, but economics still did not work and looks like at least a few others on the list suffered the same fate.