New 767-300 coming?
11-08-2017, 03:02 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Iv had nothing but this UPA and I would have liked to have started making changes 6 months ago...... Every year I make more money than I ever had in my entire life so the extension didn't mean much to me.......
I get the learn from the past but 2300 of our pilots have no past except for this UPA. This is why we disagree and it is why we had to go to LEAP training and learn how to play nice
, and how to communicate with you old folks.
I get the learn from the past but 2300 of our pilots have no past except for this UPA. This is why we disagree and it is why we had to go to LEAP training and learn how to play nice
, and how to communicate with you old folks."Those who don't learn from History are doomed to repeat it." And i'm in that middle group they talked about in LEAP. You know, the "X'er". Kurt Cobain and all that. I just got hired young.
Last edited by jsled; 11-08-2017 at 03:15 PM.
11-08-2017, 03:14 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Wadr, have your expectations have been realigned to the point where you are blinded to the benefit of contractual improvements? He's not talking about returning to C2000 but building on what we have. Talking about a cap, no ptc, etc is a red herring that serves no purpose.
11-08-2017, 03:57 PM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: 320 Captain
Posts: 657
A 787 does not burn 30% less then a 767. It’s closer to 10%.
Some real UAL examples from today courtesy of the HOWGOZIT.
The 767 from AMS versus the 787 from CDG, both going to IAD. Per great circle mapper the great circle distance difference is 5 miles. 3361nm for AMS and 3356nm for CDG.
UAL #947 767 took off with 107.2k lbs and landed with 13.1
Burn of 94.1 Flight time of 8:29
UAL #914 787-8 took off with 99.2 and landed with 15.5.
Burn of 83.7 Flight time of 8:06
Going eastbound tonight to those same destinations, the flight plans had:
946 to AMS 767. Burn of 73.2. Flight time 6:49
915 to CDG 787. Burn of 67.0. Flight time of 6:36
Obviously loads and weather routes etc will fluctuate the burn totals, but the 787 is not as awesome in comparison as you believe. So depending on what the price for a new 767 might be, that lower capital cost can buy a lot of gas for a “short term” fix for Europe.
DC
Some real UAL examples from today courtesy of the HOWGOZIT.
The 767 from AMS versus the 787 from CDG, both going to IAD. Per great circle mapper the great circle distance difference is 5 miles. 3361nm for AMS and 3356nm for CDG.
UAL #947 767 took off with 107.2k lbs and landed with 13.1
Burn of 94.1 Flight time of 8:29
UAL #914 787-8 took off with 99.2 and landed with 15.5.
Burn of 83.7 Flight time of 8:06
Going eastbound tonight to those same destinations, the flight plans had:
946 to AMS 767. Burn of 73.2. Flight time 6:49
915 to CDG 787. Burn of 67.0. Flight time of 6:36
Obviously loads and weather routes etc will fluctuate the burn totals, but the 787 is not as awesome in comparison as you believe. So depending on what the price for a new 767 might be, that lower capital cost can buy a lot of gas for a “short term” fix for Europe.
DC
11-08-2017, 05:05 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 163
We could get rid of spares, sims, engines, maintenance programs, differences training, doors trainers, etc. everything that goes with operating a type.
11-08-2017, 05:24 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 767/757 CA
Posts: 2,701
A 787 does not burn 30% less then a 767. It’s closer to 10%.
Some real UAL examples from today courtesy of the HOWGOZIT.
The 767 from AMS versus the 787 from CDG, both going to IAD. Per great circle mapper the great circle distance difference is 5 miles. 3361nm for AMS and 3356nm for CDG.
UAL #947 767 took off with 107.2k lbs and landed with 13.1
Burn of 94.1 Flight time of 8:29
UAL #914 787-8 took off with 99.2 and landed with 15.5.
Burn of 83.7 Flight time of 8:06
Going eastbound tonight to those same destinations, the flight plans had:
946 to AMS 767. Burn of 73.2. Flight time 6:49
915 to CDG 787. Burn of 67.0. Flight time of 6:36
Obviously loads and weather routes etc will fluctuate the burn totals, but the 787 is not as awesome in comparison as you believe. So depending on what the price for a new 767 might be, that lower capital cost can buy a lot of gas for a “short term” fix for Europe.
DC
Some real UAL examples from today courtesy of the HOWGOZIT.
The 767 from AMS versus the 787 from CDG, both going to IAD. Per great circle mapper the great circle distance difference is 5 miles. 3361nm for AMS and 3356nm for CDG.
UAL #947 767 took off with 107.2k lbs and landed with 13.1
Burn of 94.1 Flight time of 8:29
UAL #914 787-8 took off with 99.2 and landed with 15.5.
Burn of 83.7 Flight time of 8:06
Going eastbound tonight to those same destinations, the flight plans had:
946 to AMS 767. Burn of 73.2. Flight time 6:49
915 to CDG 787. Burn of 67.0. Flight time of 6:36
Obviously loads and weather routes etc will fluctuate the burn totals, but the 787 is not as awesome in comparison as you believe. So depending on what the price for a new 767 might be, that lower capital cost can buy a lot of gas for a “short term” fix for Europe.
DC
11-08-2017, 05:26 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2012
Posts: 510
A 787 does not burn 30% less then a 767. It’s closer to 10%.
Some real UAL examples from today courtesy of the HOWGOZIT.
The 767 from AMS versus the 787 from CDG, both going to IAD. Per great circle mapper the great circle distance difference is 5 miles. 3361nm for AMS and 3356nm for CDG.
UAL #947 767 took off with 107.2k lbs and landed with 13.1
Burn of 94.1 Flight time of 8:29
UAL #914 787-8 took off with 99.2 and landed with 15.5.
Burn of 83.7 Flight time of 8:06
Going eastbound tonight to those same destinations, the flight plans had:
946 to AMS 767. Burn of 73.2. Flight time 6:49
915 to CDG 787. Burn of 67.0. Flight time of 6:36
Obviously loads and weather routes etc will fluctuate the burn totals, but the 787 is not as awesome in comparison as you believe. So depending on what the price for a new 767 might be, that lower capital cost can buy a lot of gas for a “short term” fix for Europe.
DC
Some real UAL examples from today courtesy of the HOWGOZIT.
The 767 from AMS versus the 787 from CDG, both going to IAD. Per great circle mapper the great circle distance difference is 5 miles. 3361nm for AMS and 3356nm for CDG.
UAL #947 767 took off with 107.2k lbs and landed with 13.1
Burn of 94.1 Flight time of 8:29
UAL #914 787-8 took off with 99.2 and landed with 15.5.
Burn of 83.7 Flight time of 8:06
Going eastbound tonight to those same destinations, the flight plans had:
946 to AMS 767. Burn of 73.2. Flight time 6:49
915 to CDG 787. Burn of 67.0. Flight time of 6:36
Obviously loads and weather routes etc will fluctuate the burn totals, but the 787 is not as awesome in comparison as you believe. So depending on what the price for a new 767 might be, that lower capital cost can buy a lot of gas for a “short term” fix for Europe.
DC
11-08-2017, 05:26 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,808
Where's the burn comparison between the two on SFO-SIN, SFO-TLV, SFO-SYD, LAX-SIN....you get the idea. The only thing you've illustrated is that the 787 shouldn't be flying the Atlantic off the east coast.
11-08-2017, 05:31 PM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 771
I dunno man, if that were the case it would be a few years until it is ready. The MAX didn't have any significant wing changes and launch to first delivery took over five years. If we are going to buy any, I'd think we'd want them within a couple of years.
11-08-2017, 05:48 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 666
They're already building KC-46s. Cockpit will probably be the same. I think it could get done pretty quickly.
11-08-2017, 07:04 PM
#70
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
A 787 does not burn 30% less then a 767. It’s closer to 10%.
Some real UAL examples from today courtesy of the HOWGOZIT.
The 767 from AMS versus the 787 from CDG, both going to IAD. Per great circle mapper the great circle distance difference is 5 miles. 3361nm for AMS and 3356nm for CDG.
UAL #947 767 took off with 107.2k lbs and landed with 13.1
Burn of 94.1 Flight time of 8:29
UAL #914 787-8 took off with 99.2 and landed with 15.5.
Burn of 83.7 Flight time of 8:06
Going eastbound tonight to those same destinations, the flight plans had:
946 to AMS 767. Burn of 73.2. Flight time 6:49
915 to CDG 787. Burn of 67.0. Flight time of 6:36
Obviously loads and weather routes etc will fluctuate the burn totals, but the 787 is not as awesome in comparison as you believe. So depending on what the price for a new 767 might be, that lower capital cost can buy a lot of gas for a “short term” fix for Europe.
DC
Some real UAL examples from today courtesy of the HOWGOZIT.
The 767 from AMS versus the 787 from CDG, both going to IAD. Per great circle mapper the great circle distance difference is 5 miles. 3361nm for AMS and 3356nm for CDG.
UAL #947 767 took off with 107.2k lbs and landed with 13.1
Burn of 94.1 Flight time of 8:29
UAL #914 787-8 took off with 99.2 and landed with 15.5.
Burn of 83.7 Flight time of 8:06
Going eastbound tonight to those same destinations, the flight plans had:
946 to AMS 767. Burn of 73.2. Flight time 6:49
915 to CDG 787. Burn of 67.0. Flight time of 6:36
Obviously loads and weather routes etc will fluctuate the burn totals, but the 787 is not as awesome in comparison as you believe. So depending on what the price for a new 767 might be, that lower capital cost can buy a lot of gas for a “short term” fix for Europe.
DC
I am shocked the difference is that small. Yes, load matters, but on an 8 hour flight, how much extra burn per 1000 lbs of weight? 80 or 100? The guppy doesn't go that far, and I haven't flown a flight that long since 04.
New engines on the 767 will help. Aerodynamics haven't improved so much in 35 years. I don't think Boeing would spend very much for a 2 percent improvement.
Airbus wanted to do a 330NEO, then got talked out of it by several big customers. They launched the 350. A couple of years ago they decided the 330NEO was a great idea, and relaunched it. A WHOLE BUNCH cheaper than the 350 with 90% of the capability, and pretty close on efficiency.
Looks like the only reason there is no 767MAX is that Boeing didn't want to cannibalize their 787 order book like Airbus did.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
