Airbus just changed the global aircraft market

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If Boeing goes ahead with the -3, they'll end up with a 787 that slots into the mid range market, and a Cat D footprint. Similar to the high density 744 they sold to Japan.

The 767 purchase would be rough. The only way to even make it palatable from an economics standpoint is to go with the NEO route on the -400 otherwise the seat mile cost would be a killer. I doubt Boeing would want to spend the $$$ on the development etc. Also, the most logical replacement for the CF-6, the GEnx has a bigger fan diameter 106 v 111 which would take some doing.

All that trouble to get what basically is an 787-8 with inferior CSM etc. (albeit with a reduced cargo capacity).

the proposed 787-3 was similar to the 767-200/300 in terms of range but was killed when ANA and JAL converted to the -8

Also companies right now are dithering because fuel costs are much lower than they thought. One nasty incident in the Gulf or elsewhere and oil goes over 100 a barrel and we will see tons of older A330 and 767 parked in the Mojave

originally posted by: Zaphod58
If Boeing goes ahead with the -3, they'll end up with a 787 that slots into the mid range market, and a Cat D footprint. Similar to the high density 744 they sold to Japan.

I would certainly take that as my transcon aircraft of choice over the 75's that they are currently using.

a reply to: FredT

I can see them eventually offering a 787 similar to the 747-400D.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT

I can see them eventually offering a 787 similar to the 747-400D.

Actually ANA is using the -9's in a 395 seat domestic configuration www.airliners.net...

And it's official. Boeing has no freaking clue what to do, or how to handle this. They're now talking about launching NMA in 2019, and restarting the 767-300ER.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
And it's official. Boeing has no freaking clue what to do, or how to handle this. They're now talking about launching NMA in 2019, and restarting the 767-300ER.

Well, if airlines are stupid enough to buy it, then its really on them. I mean if the business case for the 300ER made sense they would not be chomping at the bit to replace them

an interesting article from 2014 talking about Delta's choices to replace their 767 and 747's that gets into the nitty gritty including CASM and CASM adjusted for capital costs.

airwaysmag.com...

On the other hand there are other factors like availability of aircraft in terms of production slots etc. Also Delta has never been afraid to operate an older fleet which also speaks to low oil prices and the incentive (or lack of) to move to more efficient equipment.

a reply to: FredT

The source that I read showed they really don't have much of a clue either. They claimed that the KC-46 is based on the 767-200, so that somehow means it makes sense to bring the 767-300ER back into service. There are actually very few airlines that have slots to even think about taking on 767s, and they're talking about potential leases so that the airlines can return the aircraft to take on the NMA when it goes into service. So then Boeing ends up with young 767s, and nowhere to put them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

leehamnews.com...

It seems they are banking on cheap and available. I don't think there would be a huge issue with building the 300ER versus the 200 so its not a line issue.

An perhaps they are hoping to flip the aircraft to FedEx down the road. or they are willing to be stuck with them and to take this as a loss to preserve market share.

a reply to: FredT

It's a line issue in that the same line is used for the Pegasus. That's one reason that the FedEx order won't be completed until 2023. They're having to slot them in between the tankers as they're built. Yes, the commercial side is big, and their bread and butter, but the tanker is a huge contract by comparison, so it's going to take priority.

Boeing is actually doing quite well with the widebody market, compared to Airbus. It's the narrowbody market that is seeing them get beat in pretty much every way.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ive flown on the narrowbody airbuses that are wannabe 737s. I dont like them. Theyre super uncomfortable and cheap feeling.

What are the advantages to the airbus narrowbodies over the boeings that are causing them to win the contracts. Pricetag? Econony on fuel and maintenance?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Seat mile metrics and availability.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So airbus was able to cram more people aboard while being able to start manufacturing them immediatly and the industry snatched them all up?

The airbus narrowbodies feel like youre a sardine in a can and you almost literaly cant walk squared off down the center isle and only sideways down them.

I no fan. Id ride a boeing anyday.

Airbus A320 typically has wider seats than the Boeing 737, after all the fuselage is wider, but not wide enough to cram in an extra seat per row.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Zaphod58


I would take it over a 76 or 75 any day, I really like the 78 family, it's probably my favorite although the Polaris 77 is right there.

The airline pilots I know, active and retired, all race about the 787 as being a fantastic machine to fly. It gets the kinds of accolades normally reserved for the 757.

a reply to: C0bzz

I noticed this on a Spirit flight a week or two ago in a brand new aircraft that had swanky low-profile non-reclining leather buckets that had to have been sized for a 737 *cough* Ryanair *cough* or something.

The aisle was damn near 3' across. You could almost pass two beverage carts through it side by side!

a reply to: BASSPLYR

It's that super loud flap actuation pump under the middle of the cabin floor that sounds like someones fastening drywall with a DeWalt product in the cargo area as you taxi away from the run-up that does it for me. The 737 doesn't have anything nearly as cheap sounding.

Well the 737 is much older than the A320. So I might be wrong, but perhaps legacy carriers will often fly the 737, while newer (low-cost) carriers could be more likely to fly the A320. Could explain the difference in quality, although perhaps of the cabin rather than the aircraft.

originally posted by: Barnalby
The airline pilots I know, active and retired, all race about the 787 as being a fantastic machine to fly. It gets the kinds of accolades normally reserved for the 757.

I couldn't tell you about piloting it but as a passenger it's fantastic.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
And it's official. Boeing has no freaking clue what to do, or how to handle this. They're now talking about launching NMA in 2019, and restarting the 767-300ER.

Can we take a guess at the customer? 95% chance it was the 'no comment' one.