New 767-300 coming?
11-09-2017, 06:06 PM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 163
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.
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
Really why are 85% of 787-8 ops less than 10hrs on any given day? Are all of those operators wishing they would have kept their 25+ year old 767’s too? Are all those engineers, marketing gurus, and COO’s just totally out to lunch on how to employ 787’s?
Is there some dreamworld where all the 787’s are operated ultra long haul and not on <10hr legs that I’m not aware of. I don’t care if you call me a crackpot, go look at flight aware for yourselves. If I’m crazy so is the rest of the real industry.
F’ing Dreamliner dreambonauts!
via Imgflip Meme Generator
11-09-2017, 07:43 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
^^^^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.
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.
Is there some dreamworld where all the 787’s are operated ultra long haul and not on <10hr legs that I’m not aware of. I don’t care if you call me a crackpot, go look at flight aware for yourselves. If I’m crazy so is the rest of the real industry.
F’ing Dreamliner dreambonauts!
via Imgflip Meme Generator[/QUOTE]You’re a crackpot.......
11-09-2017, 07:59 PM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B-787 Captain
Posts: 183
You Empty Diddle edumacated Airline Executive / Pilots, should stay away from the Balance Sheet and 10K statement of the typical Bankrupt Airline.
The economics of the Global Airline Industry change drastically everyday. What worked yesterday more than likely doesn't work today.
The B-787, B-737Max, and the A350 have been studied, tested, and financed to no-end. It is our future whether you like the cockpit and noise or not.
When it comes to picking an airplane for the fleet, it all comes down to the deal that is amortized over 20 years that include training, maintaining,and operating costs. Also, don't forget customer satisfaction.
The B-777-300 and B767-300 that are being financially forced down UAL's throut by Boeing will continue to drive our customer satisfaction scores lower. Talk to the Customers getting off any Dreamliner on any airline. They aren't interested in any other old technology airplanes.
Fly Safe.
The economics of the Global Airline Industry change drastically everyday. What worked yesterday more than likely doesn't work today.
The B-787, B-737Max, and the A350 have been studied, tested, and financed to no-end. It is our future whether you like the cockpit and noise or not.
When it comes to picking an airplane for the fleet, it all comes down to the deal that is amortized over 20 years that include training, maintaining,and operating costs. Also, don't forget customer satisfaction.
The B-777-300 and B767-300 that are being financially forced down UAL's throut by Boeing will continue to drive our customer satisfaction scores lower. Talk to the Customers getting off any Dreamliner on any airline. They aren't interested in any other old technology airplanes.
Fly Safe.
11-10-2017, 02:28 AM
#104
Abused Spouse of PBS
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 439
Maybe the 763 purchase is tied to the Rolls Royce engine contract we are stuck with.
Back to lurking.... way too much technical stuff in this thread for me. I usually find myself scrolling until I see that Old Mako posted something to which I’ll pause to read. 😜
Back to lurking.... way too much technical stuff in this thread for me. I usually find myself scrolling until I see that Old Mako posted something to which I’ll pause to read. 😜
11-10-2017, 03:08 AM
#105
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Boeing was known to use outdated cabin configurations until recently which allowed them to claim better CASM and range then reality.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ptions-415293/
And for further fun with fuel burn numbers for various commercial jets, check out this ICAO document.
https://www.icao.int/environmental-p...or_v9_2016.pdf
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ptions-415293/
And for further fun with fuel burn numbers for various commercial jets, check out this ICAO document.
https://www.icao.int/environmental-p...or_v9_2016.pdf
According to the chart, the 787 get pretty close to the 763 on short flights, the the 787 gets better, but then they even out again at 6-7000 miles. That last one shocked me.
If we take that chart at face value, which I am not sure I do, Boeing did a 25 billion dollar Boondoggle called Sparky. Actually the 787-9 probably starts to make more sense, and maybe the 10, but they are bigger jets, and start to compete with the 777.
US carriers usually negotiate pretty brutally on discounts. A lot of small foreign carries pay a much higher price, but get a huge discount via ultra low interest rates via you and me funded Ex-Im bank. The average discount on a 737 and A320 are 54% off list price. The 65 737-700's were discounted 75% that we cancelled.
Who knows, maybe Boeing needs some pax orders to get the economies of scale they need on the KC-46.
I am more than happy to fly em if we buy em.
11-10-2017, 04:26 AM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
11-10-2017, 05:07 AM
#108
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
Posts: 3,655
When I fly international and have had a slightly seasoned, professional, motivated FA who wants to do a good job, it's almost always had the best results as far as service goes.
Also, pax care more about the "interiors" of the aircraft than the model. Does all the TV's work, with lots of movies. Is the Wifi fast and affordable. Charging locations at each seat? Waiting for lavatory all the time or plenty of lavatory service. Enough food to not fee hungry. These are the things that the pax notice whether it be a 707 or 787.
If UAL puts Polaris on new 767 with great interiors and great wifi, 99% of the pax will not know the difference.
11-10-2017, 06:35 AM
#110
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
.....Also, pax care more about the "interiors" of the aircraft than the model. Does all the TV's work, with lots of movies. Is the Wifi fast and affordable. Charging locations at each seat? Waiting for lavatory all the time or plenty of lavatory service. Enough food to not feel hungry. These are the things that the pax notice whether it be a 707 or 787.
If UAL puts Polaris on new 767 with great interiors and great wifi, 99% of the pax will not know the difference.
If UAL puts Polaris on new 767 with great interiors and great wifi, 99% of the pax will not know the difference.
95% want:
Cheapest.
Frequency.
Reliability. (Flight completion per schedule, and getting bags at the end).
Reliable wifi inflight.
Outlet power in economy.
To be treated as a human.
Lavs that don't smell like a bus station restroom.
The other 5% want:
Lie-flat seats.
Room to do business work.
To be pampered.
Old as it is, and with a fair number of MEL deferrals, the biggest (grounding) weakness in the 767-300s seems to be hydraulic leaks in the tail.
But as far as passengers are concerned?
Wifi is generally unreliable (although has improved in the last three months). Reading lights (entire banks;30-50 seats) that won't turn on...or off, business class seats that won't lie flat, hand controls that don't work, or inflight entertainment that is inop. All problems that could be solved with an interior renovation.
Since the other metrics are comparable, a new interior in a proven (or improved) airframe that is available sooner and cheaper makes a more compelling case for passenger preference.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
