The 787's
 

After cerealmarketer’s posting regarding NW’s 787’s I thought I start one over here for us OnePass’ers to discuss.

CO’s getting in these new birds circa 2008/2009 (does anyone know the exact date?) and as such, do you think they will announce any new routes prior to their arrival?

If so, where do you think the 787s will fly out of: EWR, CLE or IAH – and where too?

Will MBM3 get his CLE-CDG/AMS flight? Will punished-edmonton be blessed with a YEG dreamliner on the route? Perhaps Vincom will get his EWR-GUM n/s or entropy his 3rd daily EWR-TLV flight? Can LawFlyer look forward to charming FRA gate agents for a new n/s service to IAH? (Or perhaps they’ll run a jet down I-10 to take J.Edward to school every morning :D)

NW is configuring the 787’s with 35J/185Y (about 16% premium seats) for comparison CO’s 777 have a 48J to 235Y (about 17% premium seats). Moreover, it is speculated NW will send these birds on their high yielding Asia routes.

If CO want’s to use these birds on the long, thin Asia runs and as Larry commented the 777’s don’t have enough seats (and by that I mean a J to Y ratio) for Asia should we expect a 787 with a higher percentage of BF seats? Or should we expect a similar configuration to the 767s?

Do you think any routes that are currently 777’s will be downsized to the 787? If so, what routes and where will the displaced 777’s go to? Or, on the flip side of the coin, will current 767 routes be upgraded to 787 service?

Your thoughts?

uh oh. From today's USA TODAY..

Airlines are choosing to cram more seats into Boeing's hot-selling new 787 Dreamliner than the company expected, giving the plane a potentially decisive advantage over its Airbus rival..
"But 65% of our customers are going for nine abreast, and we think that (ratio) will probably go up."
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...er-seats_x.htm

Let's hope CO is not in this 65%.

I hope CO *is* in this 65% - means that the airline is likely going to feature a bed-type seat in the 787 BF cabin. ;)

Bet you a CO currency coupon they are. When CO doesn't have E+ when some competitors do, why should they not go 9 across in a 787 when everyone else is?

Boeing's 3-3-3 layout may be better for the airlines finances, but Airbus' 2-4-2 is much better from this passenger's perspective (even with the same width seats). I have never understood why Boeing has never built a 2-4-2 aircraft. And how in the world would anyone expect the airlines to NOT cram as many seats in as humanly possible--have they not learned from history? Or seen the current state of the industry?

It's an interesting call...

The article says an 8-abreast has 19" width, and 9 abreast is 17.2" width.

Continental has 17.9" on its other widebodies (777 and 767), and 17.2" on its narrow bodies (757, 37).

They love to talk about "consistency" across the product. Either way, they will be about 1" wider or 1" narrower than the current widebody coach product.

Here's where it gets more confusing...

A 777 can be configured 10 abreast in coach (a la Emirates) and have 17" width. However, CO opted to stick with 9 abreast and the wider config.

Question is will they want to maintain consistency across widebodies (which implies 8 across), or a bare minimum consistency (which implies 9 across).

3x3x3 at the 'Do?
 

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but at the 'Do, didn't they say the 787 would be 3x3x3 coach seating and 2x2x2 seating in BF with a new BF chair and new IFE throughout?

With the cabin comfort the way Larry talked about it (with better pressure/humidity levels), it sounds like it'll be an enjoyable experience wherever it goes.

As far as where, I'd guess EWR and IAH to/from China service...and perhaps some other new Asian destinations.

The failure of airlines to successfully market themselves is IMO why you see them resorting to cramming planes to the gills with seats. The airlines as a whole have not come up with a way to differentiate themselves to the average leisure/twice-a-year traveler, it's just "who can get me there cheapest" for most of these people, comfort and amenities be damned. An educated consumer really would be a smart airlines best consumer. I doubt that the CO or any airline wants to PACK people into a plane, it's bad for everybody, but if customers are unable to distinguish a comfortable coach class experince from a miserable one prior to booking what choice do they have?

What's average American butt these days? 27.6? :)

And, are butts in some places smaller? For example, Southeast Asia? And, if so, then what would that mean for J. Edward's pals? Definitely no 787s going to Edmonton (honk, honk, butt coming through...) and new nonstops EWR-SIN and EWR-KUL?

I'm just joking people... no flames about butt sizing, please...

I don't think there's any chance of this - period. CO has no interest in retro-fitting the rest of the fleet with such a product, and as someone else pointed out, they strive for consistency.

I asked a few execs about this at the DO, and heard 8 abreast. If Larry mentioned it, I guess I forgot. It will be very interesting to see. It wouldn't surprise me if they start out with the roomier config and then change their minds..

what is the width of the 787 in comparison to the 777? if its the same, i dont see the big deal in going with nine across.

If that were true, then I'd agree - no problemo.

Problem is, the 787 interior width is 217.5 and the 777 is 231; so passengers can forget about those highly touted 787 (by Boeing) 19 inch wide coach seats if airlines go nine across. Nine across works (as pointed out in the USAToday article) with 17.2 inch coach seats.

If anything, the trickle down effect from the 787s will allow CLE to get more long haul flights and perhaps relieve some of the congestion at EWR. I think the 787s will be placed on some of current and proposed Asia flights which will in turn free up 777s which will in turn free up 767s that could be used in CLE (HNL, AMS, CDG, TLV come to mind, but not all on a daily schedule).

I think we're going to see a lot of IAH-Europe and EWR-South America flights with the 787.. it's a real hub-buster, so to speak. I think CLE is going to be downgraded even more, possibly in favour of a focus city on the west coast for asia traffic. Wish I could be hopeful for an expansion in IAH-Asia flights, but it makes it inconvenient for the entire west coast, where I think CO could make some serious inroads when the new metal comes online.

It would not surprise me if LA becomes more of a focus city for CO in terms of asia flights...

Of course if they do so, they'll also be adding LAX-TLV on a 787... along with CLE....
(and I know you guys all talk about this in PMs...)

CO is absolutely not a fan of focus cities - the LAX ERJ flying really is a one-off type of deal. It would be downright foolish to try to sustain longhauls with O&D only when CO can base the flights out of connection-traffic (and yield-) rich hubs.

yes, we are all well aware of it. LAX ERJ's to mexico are a way to increase utilization on high fare routes, and of course LA easily supports the traffic. HNL/OGG was to be able to use a 752 and free up 767.

LAX-TLV could also be supported with ($$$) local traffic on both ends. (Zane told me it wasn't in the cards for the time being, which is certainly true but it may change with the 787)

Why would CO fly LAX-TLV instead of boosting frequencies from EWR?

nonstop premium.
and, If you can fill a plane point-to-point, why bother with an extra step (in a delay plagued airport no less)

CLE really has not be "downgraded" much, if at all. There is an extensive use of REJs due to a couple facts, including a lack of available mainline equipment and the volume of new ERJs that have been delivered in the past couple of years. It only makes good business sense to put the mainline equipment in the other two hubs as they are most profitable. However, remember that CLE also pulls off some of the pressure on EWR for those connecting to/from the east coast. EWR is already plagued with delay issues and, IMHO, there will quickly become a point where they simply can not add any more flights. CLE is not really affected by traffic or delay issues at this point, so it may make sense to push more traffic via this hub. Will CLE become a major hub? No way, but it certainly is an important part of the CO system.

This whole issue of whether there will be 8 or 9 seats across on the 787 boils down to an answer of 9 and I'll bet my hat on it. When the DC-10 was first rolled out, it was envisioned to have a 2-2-2-2 configuration, the middle seats would be 4 instead of 5 with a divider/storage bin running down the middle.

It's the same reality that's going to dictate the layout for the super mega jumbo airbus, put in as many seats as possible.

True enough, true enough. I don't ever see CLE growing to larger than a reliever hub, though-- like what AA planned in STL for ORD until 9/11. CO is going to have to push international growth to stay competitive, and I can see more domestic connections routing through CLE in favour of increased int'l flying ex-EWR. But, in that same push, I can see CO trying to capture more asia traffic from the west coast (especially in the case of an NW collapse), which would logically stem from a focus city, possibly LAX.

Because there are operational and other challenges associated with running such a standalone service?

New terminology
 

"CO metal" no more, we'll need a new term for the all composite 7E7 - 787 Dreamliner.

Lighter weight, more fuel efficient, they'll use it on as many long hauls as possible. A schedule that keeps it off the tarmac as many hours a day as possible will certainly be implemented.

It could be made out of cardboard, and it'll still be referred to as Metal. Look at "Lead" pencils and "Tin" foil.

I agree with you and LAX does seem to make the most sense given the high number of connecting flights from the 3 hubs. Then again, there is an arguement that there already is enough capacity between LAX/SFO and Asia.

Yes, basically all major Asian airlines fly to LAX, including SQ and TG's non-stop. CX flies there from HKG three times a day, EVA similarly. It's a very crowded and competitive market. And at SFO, UA already have a extremely strong presence, with non-stop to PEK, PVG, HKG, NRT. SFO-HKG is served by THREE airlines already.

Instead, CO's now operate IAH-NRT with no competition. NYC-HKG non-stop is only CX and CO. NYC-PEK is only CO and CA (the latter with 3-4 times a week only). I don't think CO will jump into LAX/SFO anytime soon.

Another thing is that the 787 doesn't have more range than the 777. So, from EWR, there's no new place it can really go, except more Japan markets or ICN. Chinese routes require US/China authorities to grant the rights.

So, I think the 787 will mainly see IAH-Europe routes, as well as EWR-Europe routes replacing the 767s.

Hmm.. If AS keeps screwing up, then maybe CO can take a run at SEA? Or CO could buy 'em outright, as is posited in the other thread. There aren't a lot of SEA-asia flights compared to LAX, and it's a convenient hub for basically the entire US.

It's an expensive airport, though. But it could work as a focus city, especially with an AS collapse.

I would love to see CO take over the DCA-LAX and DCA-SEA routes from AS. TWA got the first DCA-LAX route, but FAA would not it transfer to AA. I think CO, being #5, would have a chance to keep these limited long haul flights out of DCA.

Then mini hubs in LAX and SEA for the 787 expansion.

A JungleJet ER?

Exactly. Every new 'revolutionary' airframe that comes out has all these pie-in-the-sky features. No way. Seats seats seats. That's all it is.

Ahh the Flying Pubs.

EWR is already plagued with delay issues

I think CO has a big problem with EWR. On Wed noon, I was delayed 1 hour in clear weather leaving BWI for a 36 minute flight to EWR due to ATC issues. Leaving from EWR at 4 PM took almost 1 hour from leaving the gate to wheels up due to a lineup of almost 30 planes waiting to take off. This was on a mid week day without any weather issues! I cannot see how EWR will be able to increase its capacity much more without significant delays, which will cost a fortune in wasted fuel and wages. Now take CLE. It has room, can handle most traffic from the midWest and South, and has flights throughout the country. Why not move some of the international traffic from EWR to CLE. Why should a passenger from Dayton, Louisville or similar city not connect in CLE to go to Europe or the Middle East?

Because when most of the people in Dayton, Louisville, and similar cities go out of town, they are going to Branson, Missouri or Gatlinburg or Pigeon Forge or Opryland, Tennessee, or some god-forsaken gambling barge on a tributary of the Mississippi. If they're really gonna go crazy, they might head to Niagara Falls. :D

PS: I forgot Rock City and Ruby Falls!

Yee hah. Wayh, shucks, Ah never thought of that :eek: Hayseeds lak us nevah have time to wait in lil ole EWR when Dollys gittin on stage :)

I know what I'm talking about. I'm headed to BNA tomorrow to visit family. :)

There is great O/D in EWR for those destinations. When CLE can match that, you will see more international flying out of CLE. Heck, they can barely support a LGW.

I thought at the Do they said the 787 would have a heavy Asian influence.

Wondering if we'll see a trickle down of more 67 and 57 domestic service. I know it won't happen but is there any domestic route currently that can support a 777? (EWR-IAH?)

CO51 EWR-IAH in the afternoon was for a while a 777, continuing from FRA. But it was downgraded to 757 and now up to 762 continuing to EZE. But there's really no point of doing it. Most would rather seeing increased frequencies. It's now about 1 flight for every 1.5 hours. I think many of us won't mind seeing a shuttle-like service at every top of the hour or something like that.

[But please, no 735 like the morning CO510 IAH-EWR. Eeek.]

CLE-CDG/AMS would be a perfect 787 route, EWR/IAH-GUM would also be a perfect 787 route, a 3rd EWR-TLV would go to a 777 as soon as they could free one up, and FRA would also be perfect fpr the 787.

I think we'll see Continental exercise thier options fairly soon after inital deliveries.

-Vincent

Good point. Does anyone know when the first 787 will arrive?