Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting justloveplanes (Thread starter): Assuming that 2.25 aircraft (slightly more than 2) are needed per route, that is about 104 aircraft. |
Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 3): Where does this number come from? It seems quite high to me. |
Quoting georgiabill (Reply 4): UA LAX-MEL a |
Quoting justloveplanes (Thread starter): "As of today, over 42 new non-stop markets are either now connected by the 787 or will be soon." Assuming that 2.25 aircraft (slightly more than 2) are needed per route, that is about 104 aircraft. |
Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 6): Well, something like an 8 hour route with a 1 to 2 hour layover will require at least two planes, one going one way and one the other. |
Quoting Scorpio (Reply 17): An 8 hour route with a two hour layover requires two planes? How's that exactly? An 8 hour route requires one plane, not two. |
Quoting justloveplanes (Thread starter): This has been discussed ad infinitum on these boards, but if this data is correct, it is pretty conclusive. 787's (and A350's) are not just a more efficient 767/777 replacement, they are a strategic shift in doing business. |
Quoting AirIndia111 (Reply 15): AI DEL-MEL-SYD AI DEL-DME AI DEL-MXP-FCO |
Quoting justloveplanes (Thread starter): This has been discussed ad infinitum on these boards, but if this data is correct, it is pretty conclusive. 787's (and A350's) are not just a more efficient 767/777 replacement, they are a strategic shift in doing business. |
Quoting georgiabill (Reply 2): BA LHR-AUS |
Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 6): Well, something like an 8 hour route with a 1 to 2 hour layover will require at least two planes, one going one way and one the other. |
Quoting Planeflyer (Reply 23): No kidding,this is almost too obvious to mention. We are discussing long haul routes such as San Diego to Japan. A great new route made possible by the 787. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 25): Neither Boeing or Randy have been mentioning long haul, as the argument is total B/S. |
Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 3): Where does this number come from? It seems quite high to me. |
Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 27): Haha, are you serious? They haven't mentioned it because 1500nm non-stop flights with 737s and 5000 nm non-stop flights with 787s - and the respective economics and operative challenges surrounding these two different mission types - have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You are either trolling or your enthusiasm for Airbus is leading you to make completely absurd posts. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 29): They don't exist, as everyone in the real world knows point to point and hub to hub markets exist over EVERY sector length, and the FACTS are the REAL point to point expansion has been, and continues in the in the A320/737 space. FACTS is the 10 busiest air routes worldwide that see over 65 million passengers per year, I think one sees a 787 service. Instead of attacking me with underhanded insults, argue how the 787 space has exceeded the route fragmentation in excess of the A320/737 space, FACTS are it, it will NEVER will, not while there are thousands more A320/737s in service. |
Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 30): The main advantage presented by the 787 is that it opens up new, thinner long-haul routes than previously possible to operate economically with long-range wide-body aircraft. |
Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 30): That is what Randy Tinseth is getting at in his blog and what by the thread starter here is referred to as "route fragmentation" (being able to move from routes going through a transit hub like NRT-JFK-BOS to non-stop NRT-BOS). |
Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 30): Again, I am baffled by how you are apparently unable to grasp something this basic and obvious. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 29): |
Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 30): |
Quoting ThReaTeN (Reply 30): The main advantage presented by the 787 is that it opens up new, thinner long-haul routes than previously possible to operate economically with long-range wide-body aircraft |
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 32): NRT - BOS 787 yes (range good, efficiency good) 737 no (range bad, efficiency no) |
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 32): Sure Ryan Air flies a ton of 737's and will buy more but it's over a certain region and with a ton of frequencies. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 35): Nothing a 777 could not do, the 787 did not bring anything unique to the table on that route, and the NRT-JFk route has not downsized. Any aircraft that could do JFK to NRT could also do BOS-NRT. |
Quoting a380787 (Reply 26): Really wish our southern neighbors like LAN AV NZ can launch some exciting new routes with 787 |
Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 39): LA are retiring their A343's on the great southern ocean and starting 788's then 789's on the SCL-AKL-SYD route, eventually to 10 x weekly. |
Quoting Motorhussy (Reply 39): |
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 10): |
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 21): London to LAX is hardly an example of a new non-stop market |
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 36): It's not the capability, it's the efficiency. Sure the 777 can but who does it better? HHN? If there is enough demand, the 787 will be wherever it's needed. Could you have said this same thing before DY connected OSL-FLL? |
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 37): You're missing the point. The 787 made it economical to start the route. Sure an A380, 747-400 and 777 can do BOS-NRT or SFO-WUH. But it wouldn't be economical. |
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 7): DY OSL-FLL |
Quoting adamh8297 (Reply 13): Also noticed LO was flying WAW-VRA. Was that served before receiving 787's? |
Quoting musang (Reply 16): Does it not assume daily service? Does AND Air Djibouti">DY do all the routes you listed, daily? Regards - musang |
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): For the minority of routes that take >10 hours to fly, you need more than two aircraft. |
Quoting zeke (Reply 43): Don't know, I don't have the data to know "who does it better?", and I would wager you do not know either. Where does Boeing say "who does it better?" |
Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 44): CPH coming as well our of MCO |
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 47): The 787 and 350 will actually take separate parts and make them whole i. e. LHR-JFK-AUS becomes LHR-AUS |
Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 47): No where in Randy's article or The Street article is the word "fragmentation" used. The term used is "Goldilocks effect" as the airplane is not to small, not too big, it's just right. I'm not sure "fragmentation" is an accurate description of what the 787 (and 350) is accomplishing. Fragmentation: "The process or state of breaking or being broken into small or separate parts" The 787 and 350 will actually take separate parts and make them whole i. e. LHR-JFK-AUS becomes LHR-AUS |