Originally Posted by
seacarl
If the economics are truly 20% better then it could make routes viable that weren't viable on a 767 since it's similar in size. And of course for routes that are beyond the range of the 767 it's even more of a game changer since those routes required a considerably larger 777 or 744. But even if it mainly preserves routes like LAX-PVG and SEA-NRT, there's value in that, too.
I wonder how much of the alleged 20% fuel efficiency is from cramming in 9 across in coach in a cabin that is 16 to 18 inches more narrow than a 777. American gained fuel efficiency for the 777-300 put putting 10 across in coach. When you squeezzzzee, cram, and stuff in seats, should that be counted as fuel efficiency? The 767 at a coach seating of 2-3-2 was better for comfort, but impacted fuel efficiency.