entropy

It seems to me it might make more sense to go with the 330neo, a plane that's had continual investment and improvement (and let them get out of the 350s, so they can standardize on that fleet).

If Boeing could take enough weight/wing out of the 787, it seems there could be demand for a shorter ranged (<5k nmi) 787-3 again.

sbm12

About 100 seats too large. And a way higher range than UA needs.

Unclear that the demand really was missing versus Boeing getting screwed on development costs on the higher demand -8/-9/-10 and needing to save time/costs by not building the lower range version. Airbus has only 6 orders for the A330-800 right now (and those orders are soft) but is building it anyways because the costs to do that development are minimal. That wasn't the case for the -3.

COSPILOT

In hindsight, I would love to see the ghetto bird come back for domestic use. Loved that airplane, even in first. Smaller First seats compared to the rest of the fleet, but it was a very rare day that I sat in E. I don't need a bed for Hawaii, and will survive just fine even on the red eye back to Denver in the old First class seat.

spin88

Using Delta's seat count (since they have all 4 planes, since the neo is the same size as the 332 and 333), the seat counts are:

A339neo/333 - 293
B764 -246
A338neo/332 - 234
B763 - 208.

The problem is the economics of the A338neo are not very good, it has too much wing/range and has higher CASM, its why it has not sold other than to HA.

All three US network carriers - DL, UA, AA, could use a 763 size plane, as could a bunch of other carriers with more defuse networks, its the entire business case for the MOM plane.

I understand from people I know at Boeing that the B787-3 died due to unwillingness (and one person told me inability, Boeing was just too stretched) to commit the engineering resources to it in light of the disaster with the 787-8/9. It was not a cheap project as it was to use a different optimized wing and different design in places to remove the extra weight that came with a much longer range of the 8/9. Put another way, a paper derate did not make the design work economically, it would have had a lot of different (and lighter) parts to it.

helvetic

They already have a 767 operation and a good relationship with Boeing. I don't see how starting up a new operation with a brand new plane type makes sense; unless they plan to make the costly move away from their existing 767s, 757s and never order the 797.

The Airbus planes (320s + 350 order) are pre-merger remnants that I'm sure they'd happily get rid of.

dmurphynj

The fact that we're even talking about the potential for a fleet of these babies flying transcontinental just has me super excited ...

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/09/uni...retrofit-tour/

Would be great to see such a nice investment in the domestic fleet. I'm a bit biased as a DRW (Domestic Road Warrior) but ... man, would this be awesome.

halls120

Maybe from the west coast you don't, but on an ORD/IAD-HNL flight it comes in mighty handy. And you don't have a small subfleet to make scheduling harder.

I'm a huge fan of the 767. I hope the rumors become reality.

Bunky

Thanks for correcting me on possible 764 or non-ER 767s. I would think the only logical version would be the 300ER as it would be ready for cargo conversion. If some or all frames are not tide over aircraft, then the 764ER could be considered.

As for the 787-3, it would have to be reworked for a US carrier as the range is 3000NM, about that of a 738. Transcon with winter weather issues, not reliable to Hawaii isn't going to cut it. The possibility shorter TATL missions would need to be a bit better than the 752 at 3900NM. As envisioned, it doesn't make it as the MOM aircraft.

EWR764

Any sort of re-winging of the 787 (or any other major engineering project) would be a minimum 3 years before EIS, and possibly longer, with several billion dollars more added to 787 development costs, thereby further pushing out the program's breakeven point. As I understand it, Boeing is done with the 787 for now (save for a potential 787-10ER derivative) and wants to keep selling and building the existing portfolio until the program gets closer to profitability.

Similarly, any major 767 redesign (wings, engines) would lead to a service entry not far off from a prospective 797. Any changes to the 767 would be incremental; for instance, newer/lighter components in the vein of a PIP, that can be brought to market relatively quickly. Needless to say, the cost-of-ownership advantage late-run 767s would confer would mostly be derived from lower acquisition costs and better residual value than the older frames. This is countervailed by a shorter service life, but again if Boeing can factor in a buyback program for cargo conversions, the deal could be a winner.

spin88

+1. Although I got shagged in another thread as my estimates were too low, but I am estimating the 787-3 design work - new wing, different tanks, probably strengthening of the landing gear to take any more landings, plus weight reduction a shorter range, would be in the $4-5B range.

This is to be contrasted with the low range estimates of a MOM plane - $5-7B, but more likely $10B+

There is no way that Boeing comes up with a shrink vs. a new plane that can then be sold in two sizes (base + stretch).

While I stated in my first post that I thought it was crazy to consider 763ERs, if they can figure out a way to use for 10 years then give to shippers, it makes some sense.

However, I do wonder how the markets - already down on UA's capital expenses and low margin would view such an order....

Don't get me wrong, I love the 763, and soon it will be the ONLY comfortable ride on UA in J, just question the capital cost vs. simply maintaining the existing 757/763 fleet for 6+ years and then replace with A321neo+ MOM planes.

bigboy

Or maybe a 763ER order is the "down payment" for being the launch customer for the MOM....

Kacee

And UA's already shown with the 77W acquisitions that they don't necessarily need the latest new toy, particularly when they have a gaping hole in the fleet they need to fill.

spin88

that thought had crossed my mind. Boeing is desperate to stop the bleeding from orders going to the A321neo. If they got UA to take 763ERs - quickly and cheaply - with an understanding Boeing would take them back when UA's MOM planes arrived, it might be good for both of them, and stem some of the bleeding.

This also plays into what Airbus is going to do with both a cs500 and the A322neo/LR, and whether they do a new wing for it.

capedreamer

From WSJ:

Alternate source without paywall.

PsiFighter37

Here is the full WSJ article. It certainly sounds more concrete than the rumor that was floating around in another thread. The relevant section is here:

Still pretty non-committal, IMO.