Probe

One advantage for the 787 is that it flys similar speeds to the 777. You can swap airplanes seasonally, weekly, or midweek, and still fly the same schedule. On longer flights, the speed difference makes slots times important.

I still can't believe the fuel burn for the two airplanes is that close. I thought Boeing claimed 25% less per passenger.

CLazarus

Yeah, well, if there aren't any significant changes from the 300ER it could be quick. Existing wings and maybe the same engines as the -400ER/KC-46. The KC-46 was almost five years from contract award to first flight, but I expect it would be well shorter than that for just a slightly updated pax version. Guess we'll find out when we find out.

webecheck

My guess is they can plug a 300er body on a 46 cockpit nearly immediately. 46 engines have just a little less thrust than a 400 and should work fine. This updated version would require no additional training, except for maybe a few cbts. Yeah, it's not the 78, but given the much lower cost it probably doesn't need to be a 78 and that's why the company is considering it. All in all, probably a smart move as I'm sure the retrofit to cargo mkt will be strong in 10-15 years if that's what the gameplan is. Hope it works out actually.

C11DCA

The topic is potentially new 767’s and thus a comparison between the 767 and the 787 for a common route to show how the 767 isn’t really so out of date when it comes to efficiency.

I did a comparison for our final 747 flight the other day.

It’s burn from SFO to HNL was just about 100,000 lbs.

The cattle car 777 that left 2 hours later burned ~78,000 lbs.

C11DCA

at United the 787 can carry 5 more passengers then the 2 class 767. 219 vs 214. likely due to the crew rest locations not being part of the main cabin.

So that’s a wash on the passenger payload. The 787 should be able to carry more cargo, but that’s potential, not guaranteed it will on every flight.

C11DCA

Boeing was known to use outdated cabin configurations until recently which allowed them to claim better CASM and range then reality.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

Floyd

It's not our job to keep the company cost competitive via contract offerings. It's our job secure the best contract we can. It's the company's job to provide contractual value $1 above which we'd walk away from this job. From that, cost competitiveness is born.

Assigning the contractual "good ol' days" to a 20% furlough doesn't tell the whole story does it? The dynamics leading to CH11 were a lot more complicated and not solely attributable to C2000. Blaming C2000 came from high above. It was a convenient little argument that rallied other employee groups against us and deflected management's ineptitude leading us to C11. The old divide and conquer we knew so well was in full force.

You can't have it both ways. In one post you say C2000 was garbage compared to what we have today. On the other, you assign the nail in our CH11 coffin because it was too expensive.

Management loves the pilot who wants to open their wallet. They are expending a lot of effort and money to convince us why we should. They'll bypass the union with direct pilot appeal.

Sunvox

Way to go G! Once again facts bring out the truth. That works out to 0.028 gal/ m for the 767 and 0.025 gal/m for the 78. Payload will not change those numbers more than a percent or two so the difference in burn is exactly as you said - about 10%.

Now add this to the fact that the list price for a 787-8 is $240 mil versus $197 mil for a 767-300ER. Takes a long time to amortize $40 mil more in capital cost.



I haven't read every post, but I think this was the point. I believe the discussion started when one poster suggested he would rather see 787s crossing the Atlantic versus 767s. As a pilot I couldn't agree more, but clearly the reason to buy a 787 is to fly long thin routes not cross the Atlantic from the US.

10Lover

KC-46 has a 787 flight deck, and is currently over 2 years behind schedule. Good job, Boeing...👍

Grumble

Fixed it for you.