Originally Posted by C11DCA

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

Originally Posted by davessn763

We could get rid of spares, sims, engines, maintenance programs, differences training, doors trainers, etc. everything that goes with operating a type.

Originally Posted by awax

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.

Originally Posted by CLazarus

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.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped

Sims? No since they share the 757 training no savings there. You’d have to add another 787 sim anyway to keep up with the additional training load? Differences? It’s been awhile but that was a day. Door trainer? Already paid for. How much is that upkeep? Can’t be that much.

The cost of a 787 vs a 767 makes all the other issues you mentioned worth the hassle would be my guess

Originally Posted by davessn763

Maybe. However I think it’s generally accepted fewer fleet types is always a cost savings.

Originally Posted by ASTEROIDEA7

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.

Originally Posted by davessn763

THEY ALREADY DO!!! ITS CALLED A 787-800!
.

Originally Posted by davessn763

I think our company would be better off replacing our 51 767’s with 787’s rather than buying new or used 767’s. Not only would it save an enormous amount of fuel over the long run it would eliminate a fleet type which is a huge savings as well.

We could get rid of spares, sims, engines, maintenance programs, differences training, doors trainers, etc. everything that goes with operating a type.