New 767-300 coming?
11-09-2017, 09:08 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
A 787-800 is going to beat a 767-300 on fuel cost on a 2 hour leg or an 11 hour leg and everything in between.[/QUOTE]
I think you will find this is a incorrect statement. The 787-800 is a heavy beast because of the range requirements. It's OEW is 264,000 lbs. The 767-300ER is 198,000 lbs. read your own pilots fuel burn numbers further down in the thread. I suspect under 2000 miles the 767 burns less. 2000 to 3000 probably a wash. It takes a lot of gas to drag that extra 66,000 lbs around.
The A330-900 Neo which has a upgraded wing and 787 engines still burns more than the A330-300 on flights under 2000 miles and is only 10,000 lbs heavier.
Add in purchase costs and slightly better fuel burn with minor upgrades and the 767 May make a lot of sense.
I think you will find this is a incorrect statement. The 787-800 is a heavy beast because of the range requirements. It's OEW is 264,000 lbs. The 767-300ER is 198,000 lbs. read your own pilots fuel burn numbers further down in the thread. I suspect under 2000 miles the 767 burns less. 2000 to 3000 probably a wash. It takes a lot of gas to drag that extra 66,000 lbs around.
The A330-900 Neo which has a upgraded wing and 787 engines still burns more than the A330-300 on flights under 2000 miles and is only 10,000 lbs heavier.
Add in purchase costs and slightly better fuel burn with minor upgrades and the 767 May make a lot of sense.
11-09-2017, 10:44 AM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 393
Welp.
When this story first broke as a possibility, I was like YEAH, RIGHT!
But, considering that Boeing has recently stated that there is a lack of pax 767-300's available for conversion to freighters, I could see the scenario where Boeing buys our 767-300's outright or cost offsets new 767-300's with CF-6 engines ( same base model that's on the 764) and either leases the new jets to UAL with a term to end when the 797 comes on line ( if it does) and then swaps those 767-300's out for 797's.
Could be a win/win as Boeing gets economies of scale producing more 767-300's and bringing the cost per aircraft down thus making more tranches of tankers attractive to the USAF.
UAL gets new airplanes with upgraded engines and no speed brake or flap issues. Much less cost MX wise to keep the fleet in the air for the next 5-10 years.
Or, nothing happens.
When this story first broke as a possibility, I was like YEAH, RIGHT!
But, considering that Boeing has recently stated that there is a lack of pax 767-300's available for conversion to freighters, I could see the scenario where Boeing buys our 767-300's outright or cost offsets new 767-300's with CF-6 engines ( same base model that's on the 764) and either leases the new jets to UAL with a term to end when the 797 comes on line ( if it does) and then swaps those 767-300's out for 797's.
Could be a win/win as Boeing gets economies of scale producing more 767-300's and bringing the cost per aircraft down thus making more tranches of tankers attractive to the USAF.
UAL gets new airplanes with upgraded engines and no speed brake or flap issues. Much less cost MX wise to keep the fleet in the air for the next 5-10 years.
Or, nothing happens.
11-09-2017, 11:13 AM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Captain
Posts: 1,561
Welp.
When this story first broke as a possibility, I was like YEAH, RIGHT!
But, considering that Boeing has recently stated that there is a lack of pax 767-300's available for conversion to freighters, I could see the scenario where Boeing buys our 767-300's outright or cost offsets new 767-300's with CF-6 engines ( same base model that's on the 764) and either leases the new jets to UAL with a term to end when the 797 comes on line ( if it does) and then swaps those 767-300's out for 797's.
Could be a win/win as Boeing gets economies of scale producing more 767-300's and bringing the cost per aircraft down thus making more tranches of tankers attractive to the USAF.
UAL gets new airplanes with upgraded engines and no speed brake or flap issues. Much less cost MX wise to keep the fleet in the air for the next 5-10 years.
Or, nothing happens.
When this story first broke as a possibility, I was like YEAH, RIGHT!
But, considering that Boeing has recently stated that there is a lack of pax 767-300's available for conversion to freighters, I could see the scenario where Boeing buys our 767-300's outright or cost offsets new 767-300's with CF-6 engines ( same base model that's on the 764) and either leases the new jets to UAL with a term to end when the 797 comes on line ( if it does) and then swaps those 767-300's out for 797's.
Could be a win/win as Boeing gets economies of scale producing more 767-300's and bringing the cost per aircraft down thus making more tranches of tankers attractive to the USAF.
UAL gets new airplanes with upgraded engines and no speed brake or flap issues. Much less cost MX wise to keep the fleet in the air for the next 5-10 years.
Or, nothing happens.
Used 767-3s from Hawaiian, ANA and Thomas Cook on the way
11-09-2017, 11:16 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 657
The A330-900 Neo which has a upgraded wing and 787 engines still burns more than the A330-300 on flights under 2000 miles and is only 10,000 lbs heavier.
Add in purchase costs and slightly better fuel burn with minor upgrades and the 767 May make a lot of sense.[/QUOTE]
Another real world example of “old” planes keeping up with the 787 via lower capital costs. This time an a330-200.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-a330s-442905/
He says that the A330 has low ownership costs and, despite being less fuel-efficient, has been the "right aircraft" to enable Level to develop quickly in the market.
Walsh states that, during a Barcelona-Los Angeles flight, a comparison flightplan was drawn up for a 787 in Norwegian's configuration.
The fuel burn for the Level A330 was 6t higher – around $3,500 at current fuel prices. Walsh says this is "insignificant" compared with the ownership cost differential with the 787.
Walsh states that, during a Barcelona-Los Angeles flight, a comparison flightplan was drawn up for a 787 in Norwegian's configuration.
The fuel burn for the Level A330 was 6t higher – around $3,500 at current fuel prices. Walsh says this is "insignificant" compared with the ownership cost differential with the 787.
11-09-2017, 11:30 AM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
The A330-900 Neo which has a upgraded wing and 787 engines still burns more than the A330-300 on flights under 2000 miles and is only 10,000 lbs heavier.
Add in purchase costs and slightly better fuel burn with minor upgrades and the 767 May make a lot of sense.[/QUOTE]
^^^^This
The 787 needs miles to be efficient the only reason we fly it on CDG/LHR - IAD is because we have too. SFO and LAX to Europe is about the shortest distance you want for a 787 unfortunantly due to scheduling efficiencies the plane needs to turn to IAD. If they don’t they sit in CDG/LHR for 24hrs, and so would the aircraft from IAD.
Just because it is flown on shorter legs doesn’t mean that’s how it “should” be used, and yes the fuel burn is close to a wash on those legs with VS a 767.
11-09-2017, 01:46 PM
#97
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Introducing our newest Iteration!!
Do I have it correctly that Fe Dex has this 767 or at least the ones with upgraded EF IS?
Also, wasn't there some sort of rumoring many years ago about U AL merging with Fe Dex? This would have been right around the time that UAL Worldwide Cargo went away.
I like purple TA IL. Brave species of B1 RD. There is better money in CAR GO. Its why I like FO RD. They didn't take the bailout and the tree fiddy was their best DIE SEL.
Its just a personal opinion but I don't like anything with a composite tail.
Also, wasn't there some sort of rumoring many years ago about U AL merging with Fe Dex? This would have been right around the time that UAL Worldwide Cargo went away.
I like purple TA IL. Brave species of B1 RD. There is better money in CAR GO. Its why I like FO RD. They didn't take the bailout and the tree fiddy was their best DIE SEL.
Its just a personal opinion but I don't like anything with a composite tail.
And he should clearly know that having more than one username is not allowed.
He's kind of like Staller/Carols Danger, but the other side of the coin.
11-09-2017, 04:45 PM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
Everyone, I'd like you to meet Asteroidea 7. It's his newest iteration: He also goes by Incontientious, and used to go by Durrenstein.
And he should clearly know that having more than one username is not allowed.
He's kind of like Staller/Carols Danger, but the other side of the coin.
And he should clearly know that having more than one username is not allowed.
He's kind of like Staller/Carols Danger, but the other side of the coin.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
