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
Wow;
I am shocked the difference is that small. Yes, load matters, but on an 8 hour flight, how much extra burn per 1000 lbs of weight? 80 or 100? The guppy doesn't go that far, and I haven't flown a flight that long since 04.
New engines on the 767 will help. Aerodynamics haven't improved so much in 35 years. I don't think Boeing would spend very much for a 2 percent improvement.
Airbus wanted to do a 330NEO, then got talked out of it by several big customers. They launched the 350. A couple of years ago they decided the 330NEO was a great idea, and relaunched it. A WHOLE BUNCH cheaper than the 350 with 90% of the capability, and pretty close on efficiency.
Looks like the only reason there is no 767MAX is that Boeing didn't want to cannibalize their 787 order book like Airbus did.