Bombardier CS100

Page 4 of 8<1234567>Last »
October 24th, 2017 at 6:11:01 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 850
Posts: 10142
Quote: Nareed
Funny you should mention this. According to the blog One Mile at a Time, an unnamed "major airline" is looking to get up to 50 or so new B-767s.
The 767 is still in production in cargo version, and there's a tanker version for the Air Force. So the production lines are there. the question is why would any airline (speculation has United in the lead) would want an outdated plane with a high operating cost per passenger-mile.


Well United is operating the correct number of B767s
51 United
31 American
82 Delta

I read an article that Delta is replacing some of the older of it's of it's 58 Boeing 767-300ER (211 to 226 seats) with Airbus A330-900neo & A350-900. The A330-900neo has 3-class 287 seats and maximum seating 440 seats. Seat width 8-abreast economy: 18". Delta has the original order for the 25 of the A330-900neo on 19 Nov 2014 when fuel prices were still high.

This plane is way more efficient on paper, but the TransAtlantic market is completely oversaturated. The article said that the combination of new financing for new planes, plus the possibility that they may not be able to fill the planes, could be catastrophic for Delta .

Quote: Nareed
One answer is that a 767 costs way less than a 787 and carries fewer passengers; so it would be a good fit for shorter routes that are too thin even for the 787-8.

That may be the correct answer. We mentioned earlier that United is flying to Heathrow with B767's that are already at 62% load factors. They don't want to cut frequency and they don't want to make the problem worse with bigger planes.

It could be that United is trying to avoid the same risk as Delta by replacing their 20 year old B767s with new B767s that are much cheaper than any other widebody on the market. Because fuel is still cheap, the known higher operating cost is less risky that having extremely low load factors.

United is flying
Boeing 767-300/300ER ave. flight of 3514 miles, max. flight of 5417 miles with 183 or 214 seats (47 round trips per day)
35 jets operating ~ 22.4 Years: First of 37 deliveries 18-Apr-1991 (still operating) and two jets sold

Boeing 767-400/ER ave. flight of 3605 miles, max. flight of 4834 miles with 242 seats (23 round trips per day)
16 jets ~ 16.1 Years First of 16 deliveries 30-Aug-2000 (all still operating)


Boeing 767-300/300ER flights on United (average age 22.4 years (183 or 214 seats). Load factors are from April 2017 and are lower than in summer.
EWR
MUC 4,052 82% Munich
MXP 4,010 80% Milan
TXL 3,980 81% Berlin
GVA 3,878 69% Geneva
BCN 3,848 88% Barcelona
AMS 3,656 90% Amsterdam
MAD 3,606 89% Madrid
LHR 3,465 79% London
DUB 3,193 79% Dublin
CUN 1,546 99% Cancun
HNL 4,962 80% daily domestic flight~longest domestic flight by United for this class of airframe
IAH 1,400 90% daily domestic flight
ORD 719 94% daily domestic flight
IAH
MUC 5,417 73% ~longest flight by United for this class of airframe
GRU 4,901 74%
LHR 4,834 61%
SCL 4,645 65%
LIM 3,133 84%
MCO 854 73% daily domestic flight
ORD 925 89% daily domestic flight
EWR 1,400 87% daily domestic flight
ORD
FRA 4,344 83%
BRU 4,160 60%
AMS 4,120 82%
CDG 4,153 81%
LHR 3,953 72%
IAH 925 90% daily domestic flight
EWR 719 94% daily domestic flight
81%

So your hypothesis makes sense. They have 35 jets that are as ancient as 28 years old. If they can get 50 more, they can integrate them in and replace the oldest ones without disturbing their routes or pilots. New Airbus widebodies will change everything, and Dreamliners are too big and expensive. Even the long range A321 could not handle some of those ranges especially from Chicago or Houston.

As of September 2017, 767-300ER deliveries stand at 583 with no unfilled orders.Deliveries began in 1988. There were 441 examples in service as of July 2016. It is in many ways the perfect MoM airframe

These prices are from Boeing website in 2012 $ in Millions Average so they are more valuable as relative comparisons than as absolute prices
767-300ER $182.8 million
767-300 Freighter $185.4 million
787-8 $206.8 million
October 25th, 2017 at 9:08:39 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12535
Quote: Pacomartin
It could be that United is trying to avoid the same risk as Delta by replacing their 20 year old B767s with new B767s that are much cheaper than any other widebody on the market. Because fuel is still cheap, the known higher operating cost is less risky that having extremely low load factors.


It would seem aircraft production is out of synch with the market. But trying to predict oil prices is only slightly less risky than investing in the lottery. Ask Southwest.

I wonder if things would improve with more manufacturers in the market? I recall when McDonnell Douglass existed alongside Boeing and Airbus, but not much past that (Lockheed still had the L-1011 then, though). Not the days when there were other US manufacturers, along with French, British and Dutch.

Quote:
These prices are from Boeing website in 2012 $ in Millions Average so they are more valuable as relative comparisons than as absolute prices
767-300ER $182.8 million
767-300 Freighter $185.4 million
787-8 $206.8 million


No one pays list price. i wonder, though whether Boeing would try to offer a bigger discount on the 787 to make it more attractive. I'm sure they'd rather sell 787s than 767s.

Me, I like the 767. the 2-4-2 configuration is great. You have 2 more seats than on a narrow body, but the same proportion of middle seats.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 25th, 2017 at 12:12:40 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 2613
The 767 is 16.5 feet wide. the 787 is 18 feet.

Some airlines have put 2-4-2 seating into the 787, and that sounds quite comfortable. Most, though, have gone with 3-3-3.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
October 25th, 2017 at 12:24:57 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 850
Posts: 10142
Quote: Dalex64
The 767 is 16.5 feet wide. the 787 is 18 feet. Some airlines have put 2-4-2 seating into the 787, and that sounds quite comfortable. Most, though, have gone with 3-3-3.

ANA is the largest Dreamliner operator in the world, and they do both 2-4-2 and 3-3-3.

The 2-4-2 configuration is incredibly luxurious with only 156 seats (only 13 rows of economy) (fewer seats than most narrowbody configurations).

Business 44" pitch 19.4" width 46 flat bed seats with 180 degree recline
Economy 33-34" pitch 18.6" width 112 standard seats with 115 degree recline

Quote: Nareed
No one pays list price. i wonder, though whether Boeing would try to offer a bigger discount on the 787 to make it more attractive. I'm sure they'd rather sell 787s than 767s.


Since the majority of the 787-8s that were ordered have been delivered, you would think Boeing would sell some more at a discount to try and be competitive with the A321 neo Long range.

Not price competitive on a plane by plane basis, but maybe try and get the price of seven B787-8s similar to the price of ten A321neoLR. Then you could add roughly the same number of seats to your fleet for about the same price.
October 25th, 2017 at 12:33:55 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 2613
Further reading tells me that the 767 went up to 7 abreast, i.e. 2-3-2 - who was doing 2-4-2? that sounds really really cramped in 16.5 feet.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
October 25th, 2017 at 12:50:47 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12535
Quote: Dalex64
Further reading tells me that the 767 went up to 7 abreast, i.e. 2-3-2 - who was doing 2-4-2? that sounds really really cramped in 16.5 feet.


You're right. Seat Guru indicates 2-3-2 for AA, Delta and Untied. I must have had it mixed up with the A330.

But that's even better. At 2-3-2 there is only 1/7th of middle seats, and 4/7th of aisle seats.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 25th, 2017 at 12:53:30 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12535
Quote: Pacomartin
Since the majority of the 787-8s that were ordered have been delivered, you would think Boeing would sell some more at a discount to try and be competitive with the A321 neo Long range.


That just complements my argument. Sell the 787-8 cheap enough so united (or whoever) forgets they ever knew the 767 even existed.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 25th, 2017 at 2:52:01 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 850
Posts: 10142
In fuel economy tests the smallest Dreamliner burns 5% less fuel than the B767-300ER even though it can carry far more passengers with a maximum take off weight 22% higher. That is pretty impressive for two decades.

1988 3,000 nmi 5.39 kg/km (MTOW 186,880 kg) Boeing 767-300ER
2009 3,400 nmi 5.11 kg/km (MTOW 227,930 kg) Boeing 787-8

Quote: Nareed
That just complements my argument. Sell the 787-8 cheap enough so united (or whoever) forgets they ever knew the 767 even existed.


Or a modification of that argument is that all the profit that can be gleaned from the 787-8 has already been made. They have already delivered 346 planes out of 423 orders.

Just lower the price so that you barely cover production costs, but massacre the competition (A321neo Long Range) until you can design a new plane.
October 25th, 2017 at 4:18:38 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 345
Posts: 12535
Quote: Pacomartin
In fuel economy tests the smallest Dreamliner burns 5% less fuel than the B767-300ER even though it can carry far more passengers with a maximum take off weight 22% higher. That is pretty impressive for two decades.


Yes, it is. But with cheap fuel (and who knows how long that will last), the answer is: But the 787 costs a tad more than 5% of what a 767 does. Or, rather, how long to pay off the capital costs with fuel savings?

Quote:
Just lower the price so that you barely cover production costs, but massacre the competition (A321neo Long Range) until you can design a new plane.


How does the fuel argument hold up with a neo? I can buy the 787 gulps less fuel per passenger mile, because composites make it lighter. But a new engine counts, too.

Besides, 7 787s can't give you the routes or frequencies 10 A321neos can.

It's a difficult and complicated business. And tomorrow oil may shoot up to $150 a barrel.
Donald Trump is a fucking liar
October 25th, 2017 at 5:31:15 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 850
Posts: 10142
Quote: Nareed
Besides, 7 787s can't give you the routes or frequencies 10 A321neos can.


Not to mention you have to compare to 7 A330-900neos as well.

It was Airbus that made the $26 billion mistake with the A380. Meanwhile Boeing sold 1518 B777 at immense profit from June 7, 1995 through September 2017.

You would think of the two companies it would be Boeing that would have the brightest future.
Page 4 of 8<1234567>Last »