|
Boeing looking at stretched 787 model
Longer jet would help counter Airbus plans. Will Continental go for the 787-10?
|
The 787-10 can be a 772 series replacer. If an airline has no need for planes larger than the 772, then having a combo of 787-8s for thinner routes, and -10s (and maybe -9s) for denser ones, would be very efficient for an airline.
|
Considering they just bought 2 new 777s (coming in March?), and the 764s (holding about 250ish) a few years ago, I don't really see them going for more aircraft that hold more passengers... on the contrary, they are using the 752s to expand.
The 787-10's range will also be reduced compared to the -9 ... it will only carry more passengers. So if CO is searching for new, super-far away markets (like SE Asia from EWR, wouldn't that be nice?!), the -10 won't be the best bet for CO if it can't completely fill the A/C. And we know that CO likes to run its plane at capacity. Now, if they simply want to replace the 777's with more dense A/C for shorter routes that are super high yield, like EWR-TLV, it makes you wonder... but I don't see them phasing out the 777 anytime soon considering they just bought new ones! |
Remember that CO now only has 44 long-haul widebodies with two more coming this Spring. The 20 787-8s on order are increasing that number by over 40%. I think it'll be a while before they order more, especially if they're keeping the 762.
|
Per A.net, looks like CO has 20 Options on the 787-8 as well. If CO exercised all its options, it could effectively double its widebody fleet (or increase its long-haul fleet by a third if you count 757-200s). CO could even retire the 762s (which it has given hints it would like to do), and still maintain massive international growth.
|
Originally Posted by Anglo Large Clawed Otter
(Post 7177569)
Per A.net, looks like CO has 20 Options on the 787-8 as well. If CO exercised all its options, it could effectively double its widebody fleet (or increase its long-haul fleet by a third if you count 757-200s). CO could even retire the 762s (which it has given hints it would like to do), and still maintain massive international growth.
MUC, MUC, MUC! Sorry...I couldn't help myself...:D |
Larry has said that the 787 will be for Asia what the 757 was to Europe. It can fly long, thinner routes. I would expect the 787-10 to replace/supplement 777's. It can fly as far as the 777. The 789 will open up additional medium-heavy markets in Asia. They can use the 787-10 for very heavy routes (IAH-LON, EWR-TLV).
|
Originally Posted by theblakefish
(Post 7177959)
MUC, MUC, MUC!
They now have EWR-TXL, EWR-CGN, EWR-HAM, along with the standard EWR-FRA route. CGN is not doing that well. I do not see CO bringing back EWR-MUC anytime soon. Maybe the dynamics have changed - but I see Eastern Europe first. |
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 7178631)
CO flew this route, EWR-MUC, with a DC-10 - and discontinued it. They also discontinued the EWR-DUS route.
They now have EWR-TXL, EWR-CGN, EWR-HAM, along with the standard EWR-FRA route. CGN is not doing that well. I do not see CO bringing back EWR-MUC anytime soon. Maybe the dynamics have changed - but I see Eastern Europe first. Pretty much everything in Eastern Europe would require 76x or 777 for the range. The 757 just can't make it. The only way to do that would be to pull a/c off of routes like BRU, and that just got the 777 upgrade, so it is losing its 767, but not for a 757. |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 7179172)
Can the 757 make it to MUC? It is only 70 miles further than TXL, so I'd like to think so, but I also know that most of the Germany 757 routes are running very close to the edge of where they can.
Pretty much everything in Eastern Europe would require 76x or 777 for the range. The 757 just can't make it. The only way to do that would be to pull a/c off of routes like BRU, and that just got the 777 upgrade, so it is losing its 767, but not for a 757. |
Originally Posted by entropy
(Post 7178061)
Larry has said that the 787 will be for Asia what the 757 was to Europe. It can fly long, thinner routes. I would expect the 787-10 to replace/supplement 777's. It can fly as far as the 777. The 789 will open up additional medium-heavy markets in Asia. They can use the 787-10 for very heavy routes (IAH-LON, EWR-TLV).
|
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 7178631)
CO flew this route, EWR-MUC, with a DC-10 - and discontinued it. They also discontinued the EWR-DUS route.
They now have EWR-TXL, EWR-CGN, EWR-HAM, along with the standard EWR-FRA route. CGN is not doing that well. I do not see CO bringing back EWR-MUC anytime soon. Maybe the dynamics have changed - but I see Eastern Europe first. On the other hand, there are a lot of people in MUC who are looking for really really good service in all three service classes including a real First Class(MUC has one existing EWR flight with a Business Class only flight) and I am sorry to say that but CO would loose that competition against LH. All LH planes out of MUC are equipped with the newest available LH seats, etc, they have real lounges, etc. So my guess is, MUC would do better for CO than CGN, HAM or TXL but it's ajust a question of time until LH will start a three class flight from their HUB in MUC to EWR and then CO will be in trouble. |
Originally Posted by supermasterphil
(Post 7181524)
The only difference is that MUC (30 million pax a year and is still the fastest growing airport in Germany) is one of European bigger airports with real international traffic. And compared to MUC, TXL, CGN and HAM are jokes. None of the last three mentioned airports are taking any traffic from MUC-EWR.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people in MUC who are looking for really really good service in all three service classes including a real First Class(MUC has one existing EWR flight with a Business Class only flight) and I am sorry to say that but CO would loose that competition against LH. All LH planes out of MUC are equipped with the newest available LH seats, etc, they have real lounges, etc. So my guess is, MUC would do better for CO than CGN, HAM or TXL but it's ajust a question of time until LH will start a three class flight from their HUB in MUC to EWR and then CO will be in trouble. And, as supermasterphil said, CO can't honestly compete with LH in quality/comfort, etc. CO is great, compared to US airlines, but c'mon! I'm not bashing, just trying to be realistic. |
"Larry has said that the 787 will be for Asia what the 757 was to Europe"
???? I seem to remeber Larry saying that they had not decided yet on where the 787 would fly. A big issue was the fact that Asia routes would require 2 planes for each route, given the extensive layovers. I got the distinct impression that a lot of these birds would do Europe and some Asia. |
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 7179172)
Can the 757 make it to MUC? It is only 70 miles further than TXL, so I'd like to think so, but I also know that most of the Germany 757 routes are running very close to the edge of where they can.
Pretty much everything in Eastern Europe would require 76x or 777 for the range. The 757 just can't make it. The only way to do that would be to pull a/c off of routes like BRU, and that just got the 777 upgrade, so it is losing its 767, but not for a 757. |
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 7185006)
The topic of this thread is "where will CO be applying the new 787". So the 757 issue and needing 767 is not applicable to this discussion. The 787 will go wherever CO wants to go.
|
Originally Posted by Vulcan
(Post 7184639)
???? I seem to remeber Larry saying that they had not decided yet on where the 787 would fly. A big issue was the fact that Asia routes would require 2 planes for each route, given the extensive layovers. I got the distinct impression that a lot of these birds would do Europe and some Asia.
|
Originally Posted by Vulcan
(Post 7184639)
"Larry has said that the 787 will be for Asia what the 757 was to Europe"
On a more serious note, that sounds pretty great. Only question is where would CO fly in Asia for new routes? Aren't China and Japan routes limited? I haven't heard anything of CO wanting to operate a SIN flight. Delhi seems to justify the 777 as is. So, where would they go? any speculation? Dhaka? Bangkok? Seoul? Sinapore? Does CO have any interest in developing Africa too? |
Houston has large Taiwanese and Vietnamese communities. CO should consider operating their own flights to TPE. Right now, CI is doing IAH-SEA-TPE 4 times a week, and I know some Taiwanese will prefer a CO or BR operated flight instead.
I don't know much about the rights issue, but they can then extend their HKG (or as I proposed, a TPE flight) to SGN; like what UA is doing. Limited competition, unlike SIN or BKK. And UA and NW's TPE flights often seem like orphans, and everybody is concentrating more on getting rights to China instead. And of course, they really need to strike a broad codeshare agreement with KE and operate into ICN, and for passengers to connect to other Chinese cities. |
Originally Posted by rkkwan
(Post 7185977)
The only Asia route with extensive layover is HKG. And a semi-long one on one of the TLVs. DEL, PEK, NRT are all turned around immediately.
Yes, these planes are on a 'race track that sees the plane comming to NRT from EWR go on to IAH (and vice versa), and then maybe on to Europe. Still, using the 787s for Asia get less utilization out of them (time in the air flying passengers) than if they are used IAH-Europe-IAH. Just my opinion. |
Originally Posted by Vulcan
(Post 7193142)
While this is technically true, it is common sense that if a flight to PEK takes 13-14 hours, then 2 hour restocking, you need more than one plane (unless, of course, the new 787s can warp time:))
Yes, these planes are on a 'race track that sees the plane comming to NRT from EWR go on to IAH (and vice versa), and then maybe on to Europe. Still, using the 787s for Asia get less utilization out of them (time in the air flying passengers) than if they are used IAH-Europe-IAH. Just my opinion. Like I said, CO's flights to Asia has high utilization, except for HKG. Unlike NW and UA which leave a dozen of 747s and 777s sitting in HKG, BKK, SIN, SGN, TPE, etc every night. Or South American flights that have the planes sit there for most of the day. But really. Who cares? It's about how much money can each plane makes for the company. Of course, the best are routes that are short, high utilization, and full of high-yield customers. That's why EWR-TLV is so lucrative. --- Edit: BTW, you're absolutely correct that CO can use the planes after coming back from a long Asian trips to other destination. So, one should simply calculate the overall utilization for a whole fleet. And that's also why CO is wise to keep all its 777 in the same configuration. An example of very poor utilization is Air Canada's A345 for YYZ-HKG. Two planes for just one daily flight each way. But that's not the case with CO's operation. |
Originally Posted by rkkwan
(Post 7193329)
But really. Who cares? It's about how much money can each plane makes for the company. Of course, the best are routes that are short, high utilization, and full of high-yield customers. That's why EWR-TLV is so lucrative.
|
Originally Posted by sbm12
(Post 7193484)
There is also cargo to consider, which helps many of the routes. That being said, if you're looking for high-yield routes with short trips and high utilization, I'd say NYC-DCA is the best example. Even with the enormous frequency of flights running on the route, most of the tickets are sold at or vey close to full fare, and the flights are generally very full as well.
|
You can get DCA-NYC on the cheap for weekends and in advance, especially with a Saturday night stay. On the other hand, the walk-up fare and non-leisure travel dates goes for $650-700 r/t. There is a LOT of business traffic on those fares.
|
CO just announced they are buying five more 787-9s and converting 12 of their 787-8 orders to 787-9s.
Looks like some international traffic expansion for CO... |
This means CO will have 8 787-8s and 17 787-9s. That's almost as many 772ER they have currently. Just think about the possibilities. ^ ^
Press release here: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....icle&ID=972737 |
Originally Posted by SEA_Tigger
(Post 7386771)
CO just announced they are buying five more 787-9s and converting 12 of their 787-8 orders to 787-9s. Looks like some international traffic expansion for CO...
|
From the PR:
Continental has approximately $9 billion (list price) of Boeing aircraft on order. In addition to the 25 787s, Continental has 60 737s and two 777s on order, plus options for 82 additional 737 and 787 aircraft. The two 777s will be delivered in the next 45 days. Anyways, good to hear CO increasing their dreamliner order :) ^ |
Originally Posted by J.Edward
(Post 7386988)
Is that correct? I thought that one of CO's two new 777's has been delivered.
|
Originally Posted by rkkwan
(Post 7386812)
This means CO will have 8 787-8s and 17 787-9s. That's almost as many 772ER they have currently. Just think about the possibilities.
|
Like LK and JS said in the last Houston 'DO, yes the 762 will be the first to go if they want them to go, like in an economic downturn or whatnot. But I think they can still be useful for developing new thin routes.
I think with this extra order and conversion, they put huge pressure on DL on the longhauls. The 787-9 can do Indian routes much cheaper than the 772ER/LRs (for both cost of plane and operation), and will be vastly more efficient than DL's aging 763 on European routes. And I think we shouldn't rule out a possible return to the Australian market. The operation economics is very different between the 787-9 and the DC-10. |
Here! It is official news releases from CO put additional 5x 787-9 & converts 12x from 787-8 to 787-9 and here it is:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070312/dam008b.html?.v=1 Continental Airlines Increases Its Commitment to the Long-Range, Fuel- Efficient Boeing 787 Dreamliner Monday March 12, 9:00 am ET First Airline in the Americas to Order the 787-9 HOUSTON, March 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL - News) today announced that it has increased its commitment to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, raising its firm order from 20 to 25 aircraft. By adding five 787-9 aircraft to its firm order, Continental is strengthening its ability to further modernize its fleet in the years ahead and unlocking additional international expansion opportunities. (Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20070312/DAM008 ) In addition to increasing its firm order to 25 787s, Continental has converted 12 previously ordered 787-8s into 787-9s, for a total of 17 787-9 and eight 787-8 aircraft on firm order. Continental becomes the first airline in the Americas to order the 787-9, which will carry more passengers and fly further than the 787-8. "Since we placed our initial 787 order in December 2004, we have become even more impressed with the 787 and its capabilities," said Larry Kellner, chairman and CEO. "The increased size and range of the 787-9 will allow us to serve more cities with the lowest operating seat cost of any aircraft in our fleet. This is the second time we have increased our 787 order, and demonstrates our continued confidence in Boeing and the 787." The Boeing 787 is the optimal aircraft to support Continental's strategy for continued international growth. With expanded range capabilities, unmatched fuel efficiency and superior operating economics, the 787s will allow the company to replace less efficient widebody aircraft, and target additional long-haul markets. The 787s will also give Continental the ability to offer more capacity on international routes that need larger aircraft to support traffic growth |
Originally Posted by rkkwan
(Post 7387318)
And I think we shouldn't rule out a possible return to the Australian market.
|
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 7388292)
LK said the Australia market takes a 500 seat airplane - like a 748 or A380 to be competitive. I do not see a return anytime soon.
|
Originally Posted by cova
(Post 7388292)
LK said the Australia market takes a 500 seat airplane - like a 748 or A380 to be competitive. I do not see a return anytime soon.
|
Originally Posted by rkkwan
(Post 7388484)
But with the significantly lower operating cost for the 789, may be it can get competitive. I don't think it absolutely needs a big plane to run these routes - Air NZ flies 772ER, and AC will start their own with 772LR.
Of course, SYD is such a poor yielding destination I'm not sure what the appeal there would be. CO wants J-heavy routes wherever they can find them, unless they feel the need to defend themselves in a popular Y market. SYD doesn't fall into either category though, unfortunately. Never say never...but don't say soon. :( |
Originally Posted by rkkwan
(Post 7388484)
But with the significantly lower operating cost for the 789, may be it can get competitive. I don't think it absolutely needs a big plane to run these routes - Air NZ flies 772ER, and AC will start their own with 772LR.
With much lower costs, airlines can make some routes work with the 787 where previously, it was the domain of much bigger aircraft. It can fly more frequencies (convenience factor for biz travelers) to get the same number seats on the route. What does this mean for CO and return to AU? Its possible, and maybe even profitable, but I think CO has bigger fish to fry first before thinking of flying IAH/LAX-SYD. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:13 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.