Is The Boeing 787-8 A True 767 Successor?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 кві 2020
- Some have suggested that the Boeing 787-8 is small enough to fill in the niche left vacant by the Boeing 767. With airlines like American Airlines ordering the type to replace the 767, is the smallest Dreamliner actually the closest ‘spiritual successor’ to the forgotten type?
Article Link: simpleflying.com/787-8-767-su...
Video Source List:
767 Aeromexico • XA-TOJ takeoff Aeromex...
767 American Airlines • Video
767 Condor • Condor 767-300ER [D-AB...
767 Freighter UPS • UPS 767-300F [N356UP] ...
767-300 ANA • All Nippon Airways JA6...
767-300 Austrian • Video
767-300 Delta • Boeing 767-300ER N181D...
787-9 Air Canada • Air Canada B787-9 [C-F...
787-8 American Airlines • FINAL FLIGHT - America...
787 ANA First 787 Delivery • Boeing and ANA celebra...
787 Air India • Boeing's 787 Dreamline...
787 Boeing Demo Flight • The Beauty of Boeing’s...
Qantas 787-9 • QANTAS 787-9 "Yam Drea...
787 ANA • ANA JA820A 787-8 Landi...
787 Biman Bangladesh • Unpainted (Biman Bangl...
787-8 British Airways • British Airways Dreaml...
787-8 British Airways • British airways dreaml...
A321LR first flight • A321LR First Flight fr...
A321XLR • A321XLR: Xtending the ...
Website: simpleflying.com/
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
#Aviation #Flight #Avgeek
![ЛЕБЕДЕВ у ДУДЯ: муху не обманешь 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E74h5fvVrqs/mqdefault.jpg)
The B767-300, to my eyes, is still a good-lookin' metal bird despite its age! It looks balanced!
Absolutely! And the winglets make it look even more amazing.
widget787 exactly 16ft heigh!
high*
@@747simmer4 yeah they are impressive. Aviation Partners once tested blended winglets on the 747-400, those were even bigger. But they never sold them or they were not ordered my any Airline.
I love those winglets on the 757 and 767!
Nice video. Good perspective on the 787 being intended to replace the 767, but not act as a direct replacement.
A330neo could be a very good option, A321XLR is more of a replacement for the B757 and competes with the new possible B797.
I totally agree. My points exactly. Well said
@col loc indeed. Boeing got too complacent
@col loc Not entirely ture. B757's sales were dried up and ceased production before cross Atlantic single aisle aircraft becomes a thing. And a re-engined B767 will be competing head to head with the 787, which is totally not acceptable commercially. The best and only choice for Boeing is still the NMA project which slots right between A321XLR and A330-800, although that's not coming any time soon.
The A330-900 is way too large and the -800 has the same problem as the 787-8: too heavy and too much range.
@col loc perhaps you should look back in the history book. The A380 was delayed by some 3 yrs when it entered service in 2007. That means that its original EIS was 2004 which was also the same year the (B777NG) B777-300ER which can seat some 400pax entered service. That means that the A380 was actually competing against the newest, largest and most efficient twin jet from boeing for sales at that time and the B777 certainly did not crush the competition which was the A380 as you were hoping for. Many airlines still ordered both the aircraft types with Emirates finally operating both types in the hundreds.
One other thing you failed to realised is that the engine technology back then could not support the heavier stretched B777X airframe. The B777-300ER is already the largest possible twin jet aircraft with optimised range and payload capabilities derived from the B777 classic (B777-200ER). Stretching the B777-300ER back then and shortening its range will result in a suboptimal aircraft. It will flop like the non-er variant of the B777-300.
Another point is that although Boeing did not publicly announce continuous improvement in their products like airbus, it does not mean that they did not have them. For one, Boeing's products improvement are mainly centered around the engines supplier, GE & RR. PIP are introduced from time to time as long as the product maintained in the mainstream. Secondly airbus only announced significant improvements or changes to the product lines. There are many more small improvements that are not worthy of a press conference. Likewise it is the same with boeing. Many small improvements hardly worthy of publication still gets implemented in the aircraft but these improvements could amount to something over the span of several years.
So I hardly think even if Boeing did everything right, they would have crushed airbus. It is a duopoly market after all. The stronger the light the darker the shadow.
Excellent idea to put the comparison on the same side.
I'm sorry if I sound dumb for asking this but has Boeing ever considered re-engining the 767 like the 737?
Probably not, as they expected the 787 to replace it completely :)
The Anonyous Gamer the 767 is a heavier & therefore less efficient airframe. If it were upgraded with composite sections & new engines it would still fall behind the 787.
Boeing is still producing the 767-300F but only for cargo flights.
While still an historic plane, people expect more for their passenger service.
Let's wait & see.😊✌
I wonder if, in addition to the 787's better fuel efficiency, the carbon fiber fuselage and subsequently longer service life can offset the higher cost?
Did the tour at the 787 plant in Everrett a couple months ago and they said the real-world endurance of the early airframes are greatly exceeding lifespan projections at this point.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but at 2:02 you mention the 767-300ER holds 261 pax in two classes.
I believe that Is correct number for the standard range -300 but I think the -300ER had just 220 pax in a two class configuration.
With this, the 300ER with 220 pax would rival the a331XLR on passenger numbers, range and comfort as id much rather fly long range in a 2-3-2 wide body configuration than a narrow body a321.
As point-to-point model is the future, A321XLR is a great option. I assume it is also more affordable than 787-8.
A330-800 Neo fits perfectly to replace the 767's.
@@defencover7697 it's heavier than the 787-9
Not really , it's just a stop gap to what is really required. Too small of a capacity to replace the 767
Yes shure, the B787-9 is the new B767-300ER, but i think Boeing should do a ER/LR version of B787 like Airbus did to A321NEO LR/XLR.
Well that depends on the body length and width of the fuselage of the two models.
The 787-9 is also a 767-400ER replacement too.
Can you make a video about Boeing 787-9?
What does to advanced mean?
It’s simple really. The A321XLR can replace the 757, and the 787-8 can replace the 767. Problem solved.
Or the a330neo could replace the 767
Its not that easy as the 787-8 is way too heavy and has too much range for most 767 missions. Same for the A330neo.
It doesn't have the performance of a 757
I would have hit the like button but the video already had 787 likes and I didn’t want to ruin it
Is putting the title into the video, worth the effort
The 767-300 does not seat 260 in a 2 class layout with a standard 2-3-2 economy. With 2-4-2 you could reach that but no normal fullfare Airline will do that. The 767-300 seats around 210 in 2 classes, the 787-8 around 240.
The main reason why the 787-8 isnt the ideal 767-300 replacement on most routes (7-8 hour missions) is that the 787-8 is way too heavy (OEW one third higher than 767-300) and its MTOW/Range is too high. Of course the overall operating cost are around the same (20% better on per seat basis), but the seats need to be filled, and many markets where the 767 operates in terms of capacity its just the right aircraft. When Airlines deploy the 787-8 on such a route they would either fly empty seats or have to fill these seats with junk fares. This compared with the high purchase cost of the 787 will make Airlines look for other routes to operate the 787 where they can sell all seats with reasonable fares, but the original 767 market will be left empty.
The thumbnail tho, bOOOOm
A300 or A310neo?
0:23 is that tape on the cockpit window
The 787 was designed as a higher weight plane compared to the 767, so it is not as efficient as a 767-300 successor as it could have been since the 787-8 is more like a afterthought shortening of the -9. In order to have a much more efficient substitute for the 767-200 and -300 they need a lighter clean sheet design with a smaller capacity and shorter range, but much lighter structure. It would probably even steal sales from the A321XLR.
Actually the A330-800 neo could be even better. It has the same seating capacity of the 767 and a much further range than the 787-8. It should also be less expensive considering the the A330 neo program cost $2 billion against the $32 billion of the dreamliner. Anyway there have been very few orders for the A330-900 and almost none for the 800 variant so far...
That doesn't address short flight high capacity service.
But fuel burn wise, 338 lags behind 788, and the gap can be as wide as 6~10%. Worse still, 339 isn't far behind per trip, i.e. significantly cheaper per seat. Airbus really need to sharpen their pencil to make it attractive.
Meanwhile, 339 is much closer to 789/781 while being cheaper, and to some 9-abreast LCCs, 339 is unbeatable.
They could make the proposed 787-3/-5 but make it smaller (It's planed to be the same size as the -8) and extend its range
Aircraft that are too short and stubby like the B767-200 or the A310 are just less efficient due to the higher drag. Its not worth the tradeoff.
Would love to see an a340 neo
There already was one....the 500 & 600 series
You are a very good avation youtuber sooooo you could do a video about airbus a350 all of the versions......
PLS
I honestly still would take the 777 series
@Gandalf4568 I heard Ryanair is planning a 4-4 layout on their 737 MAXes😂🤣
Yeah, the 3-4-3 sucks, 3-3-3 was way better
@@PlanesAndGames732 I like the 2-3-2 config
@@rak7673er That one fits perfectly on the 767s and A330s
Sorry but shortly the a330 neo would be a better 767 replacement than the a321 XLR cause that’s meant to be a 757 replacement. Great video tho
The A330neo 900 is too large and the 800 too heavy.
Yes but the neo is matching to the 787 which is the Boeing successor to the 767 so it has got bigger and heavier but that’s to match the 787
@@ewan_clegg06 successor in some way yes, but the 787 is no direct 1:1 767 replacement, and doesnt fit on a lot of 767 routes. The 787 in some way is more of an A330 seccessor with more range. Capacity is just a bit above the A330.
widget787 oh ok
What if boeing make 767-8, 9, and 10
I really think that there's is no apple to apple to comp to the reliable 767-300ER. As explained in your video the 787 is over improved and too expensive for operators who needs a twin aisle
loner range jet. And being in a narrow body on 7 hour plus flight over the big pond is ridiculous.
The 787-3 was supposed to fill the 67 market...🧐
What is the so called MMA ? medium/high capacity with 4000-6000 nmi range ? I believe this has been covered by A330 (preferred by LCC for human cattle mission) with its unbeatable economics and covered by A321XLR/Max 10 (preferred by full service airline). I still hope airframe manufacturers develop successors to 767-200 and A310, the true 'MMA'
Definition of MMA (middle of the market aircraft) varies and is dependent on manufacturer. By virtue, its legacy definition is the 2nd/next family of aircraft after the single aisle aircraft with medium seating capacity and medium flight range. In the past single aisle are considered small aircraft for short haul operations. Hence by this definition both the B767 and A330neo qualifies as MMA. However moving forward, the way to define a MMA would become more complicated.
The A330neo qualifies because airbus claims that they have no gap between the A321neo and A330neo In their product lineups. Consequently this makes the A330neo the 2nd/next family of aircraft after their single aisle in airbus lineups.
On the boeing side, the B787 does not qualify as the MMA despite it being the rival of the A330neo because boeing defined the MMA to be the gap that exist in between the B737max and B787 which should have been filled by the rumoured B797 which is a 2nd/next family of aircraft after their single aisle family.
This however would change again in the future when boeing's NSA comes about to replace the B737max.
Boeing, build 787 - 300 and save cost on developing a new NMA all together!
KQ used the 767-300ER and replaced it with the 787-8
I used to think 788 is direct to 762 and 789 to 763, untill I got 1/200 model for both, I can see 788 is even quite larger than 763...
Umi the 787-3 was intended to be a 767 replacement abet larger still. No one ordered it so it was cancelled. Perhaps it’s time to rethink that
787
2nd, I’m mad
I still prefer to change it to an a330 neo
DetestedOt You missed the point! Medium range high capacity flights.
This is why airbus needs to make the A310 neo
Samir Graeber but wasn’t the a330 meant to replace the a300 and a310
Ewan Clegg sort of but it was more optimised to be better than the 767, whereas the a310 is a mma the a330 is a proper long haul aircraft
@@JSG003 actually seating capacity wise, the A310 is 2 size smaller than the A330-200 and rivals the B767-200. A 1 size smaller A330 would be similar to the seating capacity of the A300 instead and would rival the B767-300ER.
@@chingweixion621 But isn't 332 already having cost advantage over 763?
Just that 788 is even better than 332 or reworked 338.
@@steinwaldmadchen yes and no. The A332 cost advantage is in terms of CASM but not cost per trip. Even the B787-8 barely matches the B767-300ER per trip cost on a typical transatlantic mission. They do however provide higher RASM.
CASM and RASM is only one of the deciding factor. If an airline's particular route is facing intense competition, then the overall per trip cost will become a dominant as lower trip cost will equates to lower risk of unsold seats, better yield and load factor.
The A332 was using its larger capacity to offset the trip risk and the same was again done with the A339, drawing airlines to upsized their aircraft with hopes of a higher Revenue potential.
2,but there are 3 likes and 1 dislike. WTF UA-cam
Hi
A...3...0...0... the original MOM
the 787 is a perfect 767 replacement. The plane there isnt a replacement for is the 757
Why do cargo companies still buy the 767? I thought I would be much more cost effective to buy a newer plane.
They do buy a newer plane. They buy a brand new 767-300F. That's why Boeing are still continuing to build the 767 (-300F).
And there's no 787F
I'm not sure, really. I heard that Boeing was going to reinstate the passenger version of the 767.
I heard the are planning to build a 767X.
@@rak7673er I wonder what that one would be like.
The information about the 787-8 is wrong
To replace the B767:
B787-8 vs. A330-800 Neo
B787-9 vs. A330-900 Neo
Both aircraft are too big to be a good replacement, even the smaller variants of both
The 788 is too much plane fir a true 767-300 replacement. With that being said unless something better comes along I do predict more airlines will start to realize its worth.
Why not do a NEO version of the 767-300? The tooling is still there as the KC46 is still being produced. Put a new flightdeck in that sucker with new engines and you have a winner. No need for a new wing design because the 76s is still that good even for a 1980s design.
A B767 max3 is not as easy and simple as it seems. The B767-300ER is not using any fly by wire. It will be a costly upgrade which will either result in the complete redesign of the aircraft or a half baked solutions like the B737max. Boeing is definitely better off starting with a clean sheet rather than reengine the B767
Simply use the 787 9
By fuel burn rate 767-400 comparable to 787-8🛫🤓
Now, if Boeing builds a lower--weight 787-8 with a range of around 6,000 nautical miles (e.g., less fuel tankage and other weight savings), that plane would become a real 767-300 replacement.
Sacto1654 the 787-3 was offered at launched which was exactly that but no one ordered it and it was cancelled
@@jimmygee3219 The original 787-3 proposal was a plane with a range of only 3,500 nautical miles, designed for Japanese domestic routes. A lighter 787-8 with a range of around 6,000 nautical miles would at least be capable of flying from the central USA all the way to central Europe.
Sacto1654 I was more thinking of the US domestic routes the 767 services currently that the current 787 variants aren’t really efficient on. But there’s room for a few more variants in there
2:20 aborted landing at LHR?
*787-3* was supposed to be a true 767 successor, but it was never developed.
hi im the second. Again. But i like the 767
Thepelmenoi _guy actually, I was second
Mr. Boring sometimes the comments don’t load that’s why there’s so my people always saying first and second
ok. sorry.
iam
Do you guys even have useful input!
Hi I am first
And!
Our Biman Bangladesh Airlines on pine field.... 🇧🇩
i prefer B787
And alittle more unsafe.
You're really milking this topic. aren't you?
No the 787 is not a successor. Right now the 767 has no good successor right now. The 767 could fly between Miami and Paris and was small enough to fly between MIA and Orlando and be full both ways no plane does both of those flights profitably.
B767 is bad
I don't like Boeing!!!!
Why?
@@karamsaviation2813 Well, gee, let's see. Two airplanes full of people DEAD! Boeing should have spent the extra money and redesigned the wing on the "Max" instead of what they did EVEN IF IT CAUSED THEM TO GO BANKRUPT! SAFETY FIRST! Also, they moved their home office back east,. At one time they were next door - arm and arm - with their Engineers! Once! AND they have major components made outside of the United States, depriving American workers of jobs. If they cannot do it right - don't do it at all.
@@fredferd965 Oh. That kind make sense, I guess