bernardd

It seems to be one of those cases where the two airframes are sufficiently different it's hard to make an objective comparison.

So far as I can see the 787-9 is almost identical to the A330-300 in every dimension - wingspan, length, barrel diameter etc. etc. but it's daft to compare the economics of either with a 777-200ER because that's a bigger airframe. Yes, the 777 may be more efficient on a per seat mile basis, but what do you do if the traffic simply isn't there to support the number of seats? Do you fly with lower load factors, or do you destroy the average revenue in order to get the load factor up? Either way the 777 isn't going to be efficient if there are only enough passengers to fill an A330.

So back to my original point - the 787 looks to be a bit bigger than the 767-300ER's, but it's half a size down on the 777's, so doesn't that make it the likely replacement for many of the 763's?

dayone

Yes, and I'm confused why others question your conclusion.

FWAAA

I agree with you and dayone; it's obvious (to me at least) that the 787 is a 767 replacement and, in fact, Boeing is marketing the 787 as a 767 replacement. Since it is significantly lighter and probably more fuel efficient than a 767, it can afford to be slightly wider and longer. The 787-8 is the modern 762 equivalent and the 787-9 is the modern version of the 763. As expected, AA was interested in (and eventually ordered) the 787-9 and not the shorter version.

mikelat

Sorry for being late to the party here...

Are there any more details on the layouts of the 787 versions? As an expected AA long time consumer I'm curious as to what is coming up for the 763 replacements.

N830MH

No, they didn't. They didn't have a converted the orders from 77E to 77L. If the pilots unions will have a agreements and they will have a decides to whether will have ordered some 77L aircraft. Probably not for a distant in the future.

BF263533

Wider yes, but the 767 normally seats 7 across in coach, and most airlines will be seating 9 across in coach on the 787, which really helps to boost its economics. The 787 is about 16 inches more narrow than a 777 which normally seats 9 across in coach, except for the draks like Emirates, AF and KLM that have 10 across on the 777.

I call the 787 the "nightmare-liner," not the dream-liner.

Austinrunner

Huh?

BF263533

[QUOTE=Jacobin777;16254425]You might be thinking of the "B773A" models which EK has has said they might want to eventually sell off. I think the A350-1000 which EK has on order would be a "super B777-A", not really a B77W replacement. [QUOTE=Jacobin777;16254425]

If you are a coach passenger, the A350 and 787 cannot compete with the 767, 777 or A330/340. It is not a "super," it is a "duper." The 787 is worse than the A350. The A350 and 787 will probably have 9 across in coach. The 777 is about 16 inches wider than the 787, and 10 or 11 inches??? wider than the A350. 777 will always be the Queen of the skys, with the 767 and A330/350 right up there for coach passengers; they represent the epitome for coach class comfort.

787 is DVT - Deep Vein Thrombosis, with A350 a close second.

Long live 777 (9-across), A330/340 (8 across) and 767 (7 across).

Jacobin777

As much as a Boeing kool-aider I am, I think Boeing puts a bit "spin" on this metric. There is a reason why B77E orders have completely gone flat while the A333 is still selling (yes, part of the reason is due to the delays in the Dreamliner, but even then, carriers which have ordered the Dreamliner aren't going for B77E's, but rather A333s).

The B789 is a bit heavier (MTOW) than the A333 and the fuselage of the B787 is wider than the A330 (5.77 vs. 5.64 respectively). Its the wider width which will allow 9-across on the B787.

Spot on. That is what carriers have thought and have gone to the A333 over the B77E.

The economics are good in the sense that total trip costs (and "life expectancy costs") of the B788 won't be that much more than the B763 and with all of the extra seats available, it will have potential extra revenue. I think that is what got carriers interested. Its also the reason why the B787-3 really didn't sell well. While it was an important plane to get the Japanese carriers on board the B787 program, its just too heavy of a plane and carriers would rather use the capabilities and flexibilities of the B788 over the B783.



The B787 series is MUCH heavier than even the B767 (B788 has a MTOW of 502K LBS and the heaviest B767-the B764ER has a MTOW of 450K lbs). The advantage is that the B787 will consume less fuel and will have lower CASM than the B767. Also, the B787 will be able to carry more cargo and have better (longer) maintenance cycles.

The B789 is "close" to the B77E (I'll use that term loosely) in terms of the fact the B789 has a fuselage length which is about 3 ft. shorter. The B789 will hold less pax than the B77E, but will be able to carry the pax much more efficiently. Also, the B789 will be able to carry more cargo than the B77E.

Over 5000NM, the B77L is more efficient than the B77E. Also, the B77L has much more "uplift" capabilities in terms of cargo (take a look at just how much DL hauls cargo over UA's B744 or SQ's B744/A380 on the LAX-SYD-LAX route-its incredible how much cargo the B77L hauls). That being said, many routes aren't needed in the AA system over 5000NM.

I recently flew on EK and EY's B777's-both 10-across. I also flew on EY's A346 (standard 8-across). The A346 was probably the worst long-haul plane I've flown on in recent memory....

The B787 will have more humidity, lower cabin pressure, larger windows, etc. so that should help...in theory at least...

bernardd

Boeing have come up with some guff about the shoulder width in the 787 cabin, but it's yet to be proven given that the in service data is still some way in the future.

What is known is that BA installed 10-wide seating in their first 777's and had to re-configure to 9-wide because the passengers hated it so much. If AA aspires to be the cheapest carrier then I wouldn't be surprised to see them fit 9-wide in the 787's; if they're aiming for higher average prices on longer sectors I live in hope they will go with 8-wide.

Given that the population is generally getting heavier I'm less than convinced I want to chance 9-wide 787's or 10-wide 777's any time soon, so absent Premium Economy on the 787's I assume I won't be flying them very often.

zman

Maybe because AA has no long term plans to fly Long Range from their HUB fortress cities and probably wants more capaciity.

Austinrunner

The cargo capacity is probably why Ethiopian Airways chose the 777-200LR. You've compared 77L to 77E (I'm assuming that's the 777-200ER). But what about 77L versus 77W (777-300ER)?

Jacobin777

Actually Ethiopian chose the B77L due to the "hot and high" conditions which would affect performance (i.e.-range, uplift, etc.) of the B77E. The B77L really doesn't have that problem. Many don't really understand what the true capabilities of the B77L. Its a MONSTER of a plane. The "problem" with it are:
1)Its an expensive plane to purchase
2)Its expensive to fly-and most carriers really don't need it.

The B77L has the same dimensions basically of the B77E (yes, the B777-200ER), thus its a bit smaller than the B77W(B773-300ER). Trip costs on the B77W will be higher than that of the B77E but CASM will be lower and RASM would be higher-if a carrier can fill those seats at a good yield.

Austinrunner

I flew on the 10-across EK 777 a little over a year ago and thought it was TERRIBLE.

Jacobin777

Given how well the carriers such as EK, EY, AF's load factors are, even with 10-across on their B777's, it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem for them...