Ad: 🔒Remove your personal information from the web at www.JoinDeleteMe.com/COBYEXPLANES and use code COBYEXPLANES for 20% off 🙌 DeleteMe international Plans: international.joindeleteme.com
As a 787 pilot I think of the -8 as being the little sports car of the group. You can fill the -8 up with pax and gas go right to 410 and cross the pond at Mach .87 above the track system. The 9 and the 10………not so much. You gotta burn off some gas before trying that in the longer versions.
One other thing to consider is that while the A330-800 is indeed a stain on the order books for Airbus, the -900NEO is burning up the sales sheets with almost teh same operating costs as the 800, but with 40 more seats, and we all can see the incredible return and increase in travel since covid. I imagine the ROI on the 900NEO over a 20-30 year timeframe is much higher than the 800 as travel passerger rates continue to increase. Airbus and Boing should drop the -800 and -8 respoctively, and focuse on the income producing models.
The A330-900neo with its current range of 7,200 nautical miles has suddenly become the 777-200ER replacement many airlines wanted. In fact, at that range, the A339 actually has the range to fly non-stop from Singapore/Kuala Lumpur all the way to London!
I don’t think they should exactly drop a model. First their are still 600 767-300, -400, and A330-200 in service. It’s safe to assume that a large amount of these planes will be replaced by the similarly sized 788 and A330-800. Second the smaller varients have better capabilities which will help in developing freighters, tankers, or buisness jets
@@TysonIke I'd imagine that those aircraft will be replaced by larger aircraft like the B789 for the added capacity, which is often demanded in today's market.
Correct and for the B767-300/ER it cannibalised the A330-300 sales which then caused airbus to make A330-200 to complete with it and then out sell B767-300/ER.
The baseline rarely sells as well as the stretches as the economics always favor the larger model. The 787-8 is also significantly structurally different than the -9 and -10 so Boeing likely favors selling the larger models.
Given that the wings and engines were designed around the -9, the -9 is really the effective 'baseline' 787 (despite launching later), the -8 is really just a shrink, and the -10 is a low effort stretch, which is the runt of the litter due to it's lack of extra fuel tanks giving it abysmal range by modern standards
The 787-8 is actually the baseline, with the 787-9 the first stretch and the 787-10 the second stretch. The 787-9 was supposed to have a longer wing, but Boeing decided to use the same wing as the 787-8 in order to save weight and simplify production as the program ran later and later. A true "shrink" would have been shorter, like the planned A350-800(XWB).
Yeah, i am sad too. The reason for its poor sales it that it was launched late. It was launched when airlines received their 787-8. Also the A330-800 has a little low cargo capacity compared to 787-8, Higher furl burn per passenger. It just has one advantage i think, that it can takeoff from shorter runways as compared to 787-8. That's why Air Greenland uses the A330-800.
The A330-800 is also hurt by the A330-900, which has enough range to perform so many missions with much better economics. We saw the same with the A330-200, whose sales cratered as Airbus massively increased the MTOW of the A330-300 which allowed it to perform more and more missions that the A330-200 was originally only able to perform.
@@rawmango1321Not true, the dash 800 was one of, if not the first built as it was used as a test aircraft prior to certification. As of March 2024, there were seven A330-800s in revenue service.
Fuel consumption per passenger in cruise: 1. Boeing 737 MAX 8: 2 to 2.6 liters per 100 km. 2. Airbus A320neo: 2.1 to 2.4 liters per 100 km. 3. Airbus A321neo: 2.2 to 2.5 liters per 100 km. 4. Boeing 737-900ER: 2.3 to 2.8 liters per 100 km. 5. Boeing 787-9: 2.5 to 3 liters per 100 km. 6. Airbus A330-900neo: 2.5 to 2.8 liters per 100 km. 7. Airbus A350-900: 2.6 to 3 liters per 100 km. 8. Boeing 787-10: 2.6 to 3.2 liters per 100 km. 9. Airbus A350-1000: 2.7 to 3.2 liters per 100 km. 10. Boeing 777-300ER: 3 to 3.3 liters per 100 km. 11. Boeing 747-8: 3.1 to 3.4 liters per 100 km. 12. Airbus A380: 3.2 to 3.5 liters per 100 km. 13. Airbus A330-300: 3 to 3.5 liters per 100 km. 14. Boeing 767-300ER: 3.5 to 4 liters per 100 km.
A longer list including older planes: 1. Boeing 737 MAX 8: 2 to 2.6 liters per 100 km. 2. Airbus A320neo: 2.1 to 2.4 liters per 100 km. 3. Airbus A321neo: 2.2 to 2.5 liters per 100 km. 4. Boeing 737-900ER: 2.3 to 2.8 liters per 100 km. 5. Boeing 787-9: 2.5 to 3 liters per 100 km. 6. Airbus A330-900neo: 2.5 to 2.8 liters per 100 km. 7. Airbus A350-900: 2.6 to 3 liters per 100 km. 8. Boeing 787-10: 2.6 to 3.2 liters per 100 km. 9. Airbus A350-1000: 2.7 to 3.2 liters per 100 km. 10. Boeing 737-800: 2.8 to 3.2 liters per 100 km. 11. Boeing 737-700: 2.9 to 3.4 liters per 100 km. 12. Boeing 777-300ER: 3 to 3.3 liters per 100 km. 13. Boeing 747-8: 3.1 to 3.4 liters per 100 km. 14. Airbus A380: 3.2 to 3.5 liters per 100 km. 15. Airbus A330-300: 3 to 3.5 liters per 100 km. 16. Boeing 767-300ER: 3.5 to 4 liters per 100 km. 17. Airbus A340-300: 3.8 to 4.2 liters per 100 km. 18. Boeing 747-400: 4.1 to 4.5 liters per 100 km. 19. Airbus A340-600: 4 to 4.5 liters per 100 km. 20. Boeing 777-200: 4 to 4.5 liters per 100 km. 21. Boeing 747-300: 4.2 to 4.7 liters per 100 km. 22. Boeing 737-400: 4.2 to 4.6 liters per 100 km. 23. Boeing 747-200: 4.4 to 4.9 liters per 100 km. 24. Boeing 737-300: 4.3 to 4.8 liters per 100 km. 25. Airbus A300-600: 4.5 to 5 liters per 100 km. 26. Boeing 767-200: 4.7 to 5.2 liters per 100 km. 27. Boeing 747-100: 4.9 to 5.3 liters per 100 km. 28. Boeing 757-200: 5 to 5.5 liters per 100 km. 29. Boeing 707-320B: 5.5 to 6 liters per 100 km. 30. Boeing 727-200: 6.5 to 7 liters per 100 km.
@@peterprokop As we know, a much higher fuel burn is required to reach cruising altitude. One of the factors that give that statisticians so much leeway to carefully chose the journey specifics to put their client in the best light, and the competition in the worst. I seem to remember one comparrison comparing over a specific journey yet not even adjusting the fuel carried to reflect the fuel required to perform that route with a sufficient reserve.
@@neilpickup237 Yes, but for most flights, the overwhelming time is spent in cruise, so I think it is a useful, simple comparison. The reality of the business is many orders of magnitude more complex, with different strategies and different markets, and being able to fill the planes to a high degree, all this goes way beyond fuel consumption, but having a plane that consumes less fuel is obviously a factor that widens margins for success.
@@peterprokop I agree that most of the time is at cruise, however when the figures are so close, as they often are with competing aircraft, it doesn't take much to change the order.
@@neilpickup237the high fuel consumption in climb is offset by the very low fuel consumption in the descent. I’d say they almost balance each other out, so cruise fuel burn is quite a good estimation of overall fuel economy, especially when it’s a comparison between different aircraft types.
Its already a success in its own right and most customers who wanted it already made good use of it. It's not a failure at all. The real failure is the A330-800neo.
@@hungfu2422 he literally called the 800 a flop as well, a much bigger one, the whole point of the video is thaat the -8 was a success when it came out, but now it's whole market space has already been taken over and thus, doesn't sell at all anymore, which is a fact
I'd hardly call the 787a passenger favourite nor is it 'comfortable'. The lower cabin pressure is nice, but the fact that it is too narrow for 9 abreast but too wide for 8 abreast to be economical means that all airlines bar JAL fit 9 abreast seats in economy, which are painfully narrow. The narrowness also means that the leading Business seat designs don't fit, like the Qsuite and ANA's the room. The dimmable windows are also pretty bad, often fail, and are usually locked at their darkest setting by crew, meanign that even on day flights you can't really look out the window, and so it's as though it may as well not have windows, the size is pointless when they're always darkened. I mean the A350 is just an all round better plane, it's the right size for 9 abreast economy, can fit the best business seats, and has the same low altitude pressure as the 787. The 787-8 and -9 had initial success due to their economics for airlines and the fact that the A350 and 330neo didn't exist at the time, but they've never really been a favourite among passengers, the A380 and A350 have always been the favourite of passengers since their launches. The thing that doomed the 330neo (especially the -800) is that it came too late, the 787-8 had already gobbled up that demand, and now, as Coby mentions, that market segment is being cannibalised by narrow bodies, mainly airbus's own A321neo.
I have travelled a lot of airlines Dreamliner's, but i faced darkening of windows by FA's only the US carriers. Also the A350 is being made up in a 10 abreast seating. French bee has already using it and Airbus has an option in its Airspace cabins for its customers. The 777 had a 9 abreast layout in the starting which was done to 10 abreast in their future variants.
@@planelover234 Indeed. I have booked a trip from YYZ-ICN via Korean Air's 787. Imagine my initial horror when I found out that the plane was changed to a 777. I had thought that it was going to be 10 abreast seating but when I was asked to choose my seats again, I found out that it was still 9 abreast in a 3-3-3 configuration. Had to do a bit of celebration knowing that it wasn't going to be quite the sardine can I thought it would be.
Emirates did convert 20 787-9s to 787-8 in 2023, so its more than 2 orders over 4 years. I would also imagine a handful of United's remaining ~150 787-9 order will be converted as well to fly less popular routes to Asia and Africa. For a variant that was a bit niche, selling over 400 units is a success. The 787-8 is the only dreamliner variant flown by smaller airlines like LOT, PIA, Biman, Uzbekistan and I think Boeing expected a lot of smaller new airlines in Asia and Eastern Eruope when they announced the plane 2 decades ago, which never grew enough to order the plane.
Some mid to long-haul LCCs use 788s too e.g. Scoot, ZipAir, perhaps as their high-density seat config means that the 788 is already big enough for their routes e.g. Scoot seats ~325 passengers on their aircraft
I think out of the 787 family, the -10ER would be the most useful addition. After finishing up the MAX and the 777X, I think it would be perfectly timed to replace a lot of the older 777-200ER’s with range. After that, I would start working on the new NMA.
It can be for sure, but it thinks have to be thinked well since the market is already busy and occupy by the a350-900. Also, a think a 10er male hurt the 777x sales. So if of to Boeing from who they want to sell.
Looks like the 787-8 did its job of scooping up 767 replacements, but the 9 and 10 are just financially better choices. And long range single isle airplanes just chow down on the lower end of the 787-8 market. So long as the 787-9 and -10 sell, it really doesn’t matter to Boeing that the 787-8 has stalled. Maybe the 787-8 might find a new role in a derivative market such as a freighter, tanker or patrol aircraft. Time will tell. The 737-800 airframe with pieces mixed in from other models has found a new life as a set of military derivatives which are pretty hot sellers right now.
Also to mention, 787-8 can carry nearly 3 times of the cargo that can be carried by the A321 neo. The A321 XLR could have half the cargo capacity(Yet to released cargo capacity) of The A321 neo. 787-9 is totally worth as a pilot rated on 787 and A330, 787-9 is used on medium to long range missions whereas the A330 and the A320 family is used for small to medium range missions.
But it heavily compromises in the cargo capacity. Many airlines will not opt to order it as it has negligible cargo capacity when compared to medium to long haul aircraft such as A330-300.
Basically you're right with the A321neo vs 787-8, but regarding the Neo it's capacity for a average long haul cabin with a lie flat premium cabin and premium Economy is more like around 160. So the gap is bigger, but not big enough.
Usually where multiple versions are offered, the middle variant is always the most popular. It was the case for the 737 Classic (400 most popular) and the 737NG (800 most popular) and the 767 (300ER most popular). Even with the 777 most carriers went for the 777-300ER and orders for the 777-200ER dried up (787-8 sold the same number of aircraft as the 777-200ER).
Mmm 4:17 It says no other wide body has the endurance and efficiency in such a small package... Maybe for the length of the plane, but according to the technical specifications in Wikipedia, the A350-900 can carry more passengers for longer with not much more fuel, so the consumption per passenger/distance is lower on the A350. OK, the A350 is 10m longer and 4m wider, but they are in the same size class, right?, so I don't think that would be a problem...
you are a little wrong. First the 787 family and A350 family are not of the same class, they both serves different needs. Also you are comparing the fuel burn per passenger, but many airlines buys a plane to match the demand for the route. For example an airlines needs a plane to serve an X route which has demand for 260-280 passengers a day, the best aircraft could be 787-8 as it has a two class layout of 250 and it will be efficient. If an airline uses an A350-900, there would be empty seats as A350-900 2 class capacity could be 350 passengers which would totally ruin the fuel burn per passenger.
It’s simple the -9 is the optimal configuration. It’s the best balance of Capacity vs Range. The 8 might have better range but the capacity is limiting. The 10 is also a very profitable airplane but the capacity comes with range limitations. United like the -10 because it’s perfect for East coast to Europe but it’s limited beyond that. The -8 can fly forever but the limited capacity doesn’t make up Range on many flights, so it’s a bit of a niche airplane. In the end it’s only marginally more expensive to fly a -9 on a most routes vs an -8 with greater room for profits.
@@planelover234 I mean, according to the Wiki statistics, that I don't know how accurate they are, even if we fill the A350 only to the 242 passengers that the 787-8 has typically in a 2 class configuration, the airbus is 4% more efficient per passenger. If we fill the A350, then that would increase quite a bit. But in any case, the 787 is cheaper, so they have to take that into account as well.
@@javiTests I have done some math for both aircraft with 242 passenger. I got the fuel burn per passenger for 100km for 787-8 as 3.85 liter and for the A350-900 i got it as 4.31 liters. So in this case 787-8 is more efficient. At the end these both plane serve different roles.
@@planelover234 The A350 has a fuel capacity of 110.5 tons, a range of 15,372 km and for 242 passengers, that would mean 2.97 kg/passenger/100km, and the 787-8 has a fuel capacity of 101.3 tons, 13530 km and for 242 passengers that results in 3.09 kg/passenger/100km. I'm going with the data in the wikipedia, that again, I'm not sure if it's 100% reliable or not... But apart from the difference in price, probably the 787-8 can have less cabin crew, so it's cheaper in that sense as well
You also must consider that airlines are considering resale value more, and there’s lots of leasing going on, and leasing companies don’t want to touch the -8 because of its much higher depreciation rate vs. -9
Airlines have switched to all single isle planes for domestic flights and I think you might start seeing more single isle international flights, Airlines are starting to run more trip on the same routes than buy bigger planes to offer more flexibility while keeping costs down. I would not be surprised to see a domestic style first class on an international long haul to save some cash for some of the flights.
The 787-9 is clearly the fav. Range and Pax have made it super popular This is probably the only time the middle child gets all the love and affection it craves for....
I don’t know If that’s really the case from the capacity stance. The -8 is not only 12m longer than the 321 but also a meter and a half wider. The reason the capacity looks similar is because the -8 can offer lie flat seats while the 321 is being measured using recliners.
Its not a particularly valuable route but there is one route the 787-8 does very well although I flew it in the intended 8 seat economy configuration with JAL. Daily flights between Japan and the European land mass its long range and economical enough to do it but small enough that you will fill up the flight. The seat size quietness of the engines and better air were definately a saviour on those 13-14 hour flights. So much so that unless i can get a business or premium economy on the real cheap im not sure id do it any other way(Im doing the flights again in February.)
The problem with the NEO is that it is stuffed full with tiny economy seats, so it is only low cost economy customers. The growth is in premium seats that airlines didn't plan for.
Boeing's original plan was to have a bigger more efficient wings for -9 and -10; then to cut costs , it settled on one wing - that was the issue in my view. -8 with a bigger wing would have made a perfect LR type of aircraft some thing like the ultra long haul. And -9 would be in the ball park of today's 350-900 interns of range. And -10 would have at least a better looking 7000=NM range which is restricted today.
If A321XLR configured in a SINGLE configuration, it can accommodate 244 passengers, but the maximum range drops to 4,000 nm, hence direct compete only for budget airline with 4000 nm range fly w/ B787-8 only, and this segment are very less...
I'd love if the new plane between the biggest 737 and smallest 787 is a 2-3-2 layout in economy. It is by far the best and why I really enjoy flying on the 767 over a 777, 787, etc
Yeah, you have narrow seats on a narrow body. Thus it's less comfortable. Fly a wide body and you will have wide seats. Far more comfortable than sitting on a chicken roost. At least that's the argument presented. Not that it makes absolutely no sense. 😉
@@jantjarks7946 Have you ever flown on a widebody? The seats are no wider to any degree that makes any difference, and if you're on a 777 in economy chanced are that it's even smaller given they're mostly 10 abreast rather than the 9 they used to have
@@jantjarks7946 On a recent trip I flew on a 737, a 787-9 and a Airbuss 220 (AKA Bombardier C) - The 787 was the worst part of the trip. The seats are only 17 inches wide compared to 18 on the narrow-body planes.
I'd hardly call it a failure given that this subvariant alone has outsold the entire order book of the A330Neo. As you mentioned, it's a replacement for the 767-300ER and has done it on an almost 1-to-1 basis.
You mentioned how the 787-8 is supposed to connect secondary markets point to point…long thin routes, etc. You forget that the legacy carriers are not built for that, and/or don’t have the infrastructure to support that…other than Southwest…all other or legacy carriers still rely on the hub & spoke system. So….the legacy carriers need to ‘adapt’ to what the 787-8 can do…which in today’s world…I don’t see that happening soon.
Iberia will get the first A321 XLR next month. After receiving it and training and crew familiarisation around Europe, It will go into long-haul service in November serving Boston from Madrid. Subsequent aircraft will serve Washington. It will be replacing the current A330 service. Tells you a lot about the effect on demand for the smaller wide bodies.
I still prefer widebodies over narrowbodies. I’m 6 foot and 190 pounds notice to comfort difference on a Transcon flight in widebody versus narrowbody.
Have to also remember that airlines wanted more 757s, but were told to just wait a little bit longer for the introduction of the B787. The introduction ended up VERY late, disappointing many, but Boeing stopped the 757 and left customers with no real option to replace the 757/767 at the time. The early cancellation brought in desperately-needed cash that would have been spent on the 757/767. Airlines now want max range with the -9, but the -10 is just waiting for the right moment. Airbus came in with TWO amazing twin-widebodies and plenty of short-duration builds. Need a new widebody with the right capacity with current technology? The A330neo is a fantastic option. The 787 is great, too, but the delays have been exhausting for airlines, and some are moving over to the A330 to get the lift in the air. Now that pilots are trained on Airbus, the airline is more likely to stick with them because of the ease of pilot cross-training.
The 787-9 is really the variant that made the 787. Since narrowbody aircraft can now serve long-haul routes, it obviously makes sense that the 787 would only really need to serve ultra-long haul routes. The 787-9 strikes the best balance between capacity, range, and economy per seat. It's incredible to me that this plane has opened up routes like Perth to London and New York to Auckland. While the 787-8 does have a very long range, that range falls short of the 787-9. I can see why most airlines have opted for the 787-9 over the other 2 variants
I had the privilege to watch many Boeing 737 land at Midway during a weird yet wonderful camping trip. I am not an aviation expert...but Boeing has a lot to answer for.
the 787-8 is my favorite. Big enough for transpacific flights, small enough to where I don’t have to wait 10 billion years to disembark/wait for immigration
I am not disagreeing with your viewpoint on the better economics of the A321 XLR for most of the missions the 787-8 was designed for. But there is one aspect that I want to mention - the passengers. Ignoring specially configured all-business planes, I don't know a single person who would want to spend 11 hours on a narrowbody. Going back to my childhood days, you didn't know what type of plane you were going to be on basically all the way until you saw it at the gate. But today, most if not all airlines tell you during the booking process what type you will be flying on (again, ignoring the occasional aircraft swap for various reasons). And even if you don't know what an A321 or a Boeing 787 is, many airlines will provide the seat map directly, or even if they don't this information is easy to find online. And if anyone has ever flown before, they will remember how tight a narrowbody feels. Even if they have never been on a widebody before, they will see the much wider plane on the seat map and think "oh yes, this is a lot better". TL;DR - I think the number of aisles can be a deciding factor which flight to book (or not), even for average passengers, much like us aviation geeks may decide for certrain flights because of the plane being used there, just for a different reason.
Just like the are working on a HGW version of the 787-9 and 787-10, the 787-8 has either two options 1. Let it fade as a model completely. 2. Revamp the model into a 787 light reducing the empty weight with reduced fuel capacity, folding wings to fit code d gates and 6000 nm range. It would then be a true replace for the 767-300ER. The 787-8 has been in production for over a decade, it is prime for a 2nd generation.
For 2, funnily enough that was half of the basis of the planned 787-3 variant. It was designed with a shorter wing with winglets as opposed to raked wingtips to fit into Code D gates, and be a direct replacement for the 763 on domestic services in Japan, being the same size as the -8. Ultimately though it was canceled and ANA and JAL went with the -8.
@@aydoyt They cancelled the 787-3 because of delays in the entire program so added more 787-8 which they got sooner. Given the development of the folding wing tips of the 777x, that would probably give much higher efficiency over simply shortening the wing with winglets.
What about even the A340-600, not talking about the -500 too. These planes were soo much discriminated by the airlines, while they are amazing. But for the protocol, I just prefer the 787-8, for how cozier it feels like while flying over quite impressive distances over the -9/10.
A long range for an aircraft is fine if you're dealing with destinations without refueling capacity, it's no good for passengers unless the cabin is comfortable enough to make long distance travel a nightmare.
Well, we can start with the fact the 787-9 is better-suited as a 777-200ER replacement than the 787-8. I expect no more 787-8 sales, especially once the 787-10ER arrives with its circa 7,000 nautical mile range.
The 787-10ER won't be a thing (atleast in the 787-10ER you think about) which is confirmed by Boeing. This is due to the new longer range not being a new varaint but just a upgrade to the 787-10.
If the long haul low capacity market is cannibalized by the -9, perhaps Boeing can rework the -8 and optimize it for short haul high capacity routes. It's not the biggest market out there, but it's not nothing and gives the -8 another purpose for its customers. Ironically, this would've been the 787-3 that was under development for Japanese airlines. A short haul 787. Perhaps this is a chance to kinda revive that project.
Thrust per passenger: 1. Boeing 737-900ER: 248 lbf per passenger. 2. Boeing 737 MAX 8: 267 lbf per passenger. 3. Airbus A321neo: 270 lbf per passenger. 4. Airbus A380: 328 lbf per passenger. 5. Airbus A330-300: 327 lbf per passenger. 6. Airbus A330-900neo: 327 lbf per passenger. 7. Airbus A320neo: 340 lbf per passenger. 8. Boeing 767-300ER: 344 lbf per passenger. 9. Airbus A350-900: 383 lbf per passenger. 10. Airbus A350-1000: 404 lbf per passenger. 11. Boeing 777-300ER: 419 lbf per passenger. 12. Boeing 747-8: 440 lbf per passenger. 13. Boeing 787-10: 478 lbf per passenger. 14. Boeing 787-9: 500 lbf per passenger.
If the design and economics are so good, why not use composits for the 737 and have a new 797 with the same construction? The 777 might have gotten better fuel burn without the carry over fuselage build.
The 320 has fewer seats to fill as compared to the 787 -8 which may help when it comes to the economics of flying with all of the seats filled . And the range of the 320 get's it into the long haul market with a cheaper cost per mile than the wide bodies
The 787-8 has lavatories at the rear of the plane while the 787-9 does not. Quite a consideration if you're seated down the back on a long haul flight.😂
You released a video last year about how Airbus had reconfigured & adapted the A330neo to be able to preform shorter flights with higher capacity then a A321/737 MAX can provide, could Boeing hypothetically make similar enhancements? Even if it would be somewhat made redundant by a future 797, that jet is likely a decade or more away from entering commercial service.
Took a Dreamliner 787-8London to Japan (British Airways) recently. Worst long haul I've been on in 30 years of long haul flying. Hopeless aircraft. Give me an Airbus 380 any day.
10 hours in a single aisle ( airlines need to show me a pretty big price drop b4 I’m doing it) I used to be airline staff and I met many an A321. It a nightmare getting off 10-15 minutes at least vs a twin aisle even if using only 1 jetway. Tell me I am wrong ( unless you only fly business class)
The max 10 better never see the light of day. I'll fly an a320 on a short long haul flight if the seating is comfortable enough. But I'm never flying a max that far, let alone over an ocean. Icelandair replaced their Orlando service that was a 757 with a 737 max. Sorry, not doing that anymore.
It's a lot simpler than that. The 787-9 is superior in every way including range and cost almost the same to fly per trip. The only advantage the 787-8 has that Boeing priced it cheaper and that it WAS available sooner at the beginning of the program. However, it doesn't actually cost Boeing significantly less to build and it is only cheaper because of steeper discounts. Lately Boeing will rather just sell the -9 rather than discount the -8 so there is no incentive for Airlines to buy it. -- What Boeing needs to do once it gets its head out of it's own ass on the recent QA issues is to bring the IGW program uniformly to all three variants. That is every version of the 787 should have the same wing box, active tail and increased 572,000 lbs MTOW (currently the -8 is uniquely at 502,500 whereas the -9/-10 are are 561,500). The 787 has plenty of of fuel capacity in the wings and is largely limited by the fuel weight it can carry after loading up on passengers and cargo due to MTOW. This will bring the operating range of the three variants to roughly 9,400 nm, 7,900 nm and 6,900 nm respectively. This will give customers a unique reason to buy the 787-8 again -- to fly those ultra long range city pairsfor which the 787-9 has insufficient range and the A350-900ULR is a bit too big to fill.
The 787 is just too small. I recently flew on an ANA 787 in business class with a 2x2x2 configuration… A KLM 787 in business class with a 1x2x1 configuration (herringbone) (which I hated) And another 787 by ANA with a business class 1x2x1 configuration. The plane is small. The A350 is a better plane.
Over time, the short variant of an aircraft model falls out of favor. From the mid 1970s until 1984, Boeing sold very few 727-100s. The 767-200 and -200ER fell out of favor by the mid 1990s. Even today, the A321neo way outsells the A320neo and the A319neo.
Ad: 🔒Remove your personal information from the web at www.JoinDeleteMe.com/COBYEXPLANES and use code COBYEXPLANES for 20% off 🙌
DeleteMe international Plans: international.joindeleteme.com
As a 787 pilot I think of the -8 as being the little sports car of the group. You can fill the -8 up with pax and gas go right to 410 and cross the pond at Mach .87 above the track system. The 9 and the 10………not so much. You gotta burn off some gas before trying that in the longer versions.
This is likely in my head but I think the -8 is the most comfortable ride of the 3 as well.
@@caljn1 I think the same, if the best one of the 3. Definitely the 787 I would fly, if I can one day.
One other thing to consider is that while the A330-800 is indeed a stain on the order books for Airbus, the -900NEO is burning up the sales sheets with almost teh same operating costs as the 800, but with 40 more seats, and we all can see the incredible return and increase in travel since covid. I imagine the ROI on the 900NEO over a 20-30 year timeframe is much higher than the 800 as travel passerger rates continue to increase. Airbus and Boing should drop the -800 and -8 respoctively, and focuse on the income producing models.
The A330-900neo with its current range of 7,200 nautical miles has suddenly become the 777-200ER replacement many airlines wanted. In fact, at that range, the A339 actually has the range to fly non-stop from Singapore/Kuala Lumpur all the way to London!
I don’t think they should exactly drop a model. First their are still 600 767-300, -400, and A330-200 in service. It’s safe to assume that a large amount of these planes will be replaced by the similarly sized 788 and A330-800. Second the smaller varients have better capabilities which will help in developing freighters, tankers, or buisness jets
@@TysonIke I'd imagine that those aircraft will be replaced by larger aircraft like the B789 for the added capacity, which is often demanded in today's market.
Which in fact was why the 787-8 didn't do as well as the -9.
Isn't the A330-900 also designed to fly short routes without much extra effort?
This issue is similar to what happened to the 767-200/200ER. They completely ignored this plane when the 767-300ER really started to take off.
That plane also had narrowbody competition from the 757-300, though that plane didnt sell very well either
Correct and for the B767-300/ER it cannibalised the A330-300 sales which then caused airbus to make A330-200 to complete with it and then out sell B767-300/ER.
@@jacobwasserman9505 I really hated the flying pencil.
"Really started to take off"
I wonder if that was an intentional pun
The only time the middle child got attention
Lol
767-300:
The baseline rarely sells as well as the stretches as the economics always favor the larger model.
The 787-8 is also significantly structurally different than the -9 and -10 so Boeing likely favors selling the larger models.
-9 is the sweet spot
Well -9 is the baseline
Given that the wings and engines were designed around the -9, the -9 is really the effective 'baseline' 787 (despite launching later), the -8 is really just a shrink, and the -10 is a low effort stretch, which is the runt of the litter due to it's lack of extra fuel tanks giving it abysmal range by modern standards
The 787-8 is actually the baseline, with the 787-9 the first stretch and the 787-10 the second stretch. The 787-9 was supposed to have a longer wing, but Boeing decided to use the same wing as the 787-8 in order to save weight and simplify production as the program ran later and later. A true "shrink" would have been shorter, like the planned A350-800(XWB).
See 767-200.
I feel bad for the A330-800 tho...
Yeah, i am sad too. The reason for its poor sales it that it was launched late. It was launched when airlines received their 787-8. Also the A330-800 has a little low cargo capacity compared to 787-8, Higher furl burn per passenger. It just has one advantage i think, that it can takeoff from shorter runways as compared to 787-8. That's why Air Greenland uses the A330-800.
The A330-800 is also hurt by the A330-900, which has enough range to perform so many missions with much better economics. We saw the same with the A330-200, whose sales cratered as Airbus massively increased the MTOW of the A330-300 which allowed it to perform more and more missions that the A330-200 was originally only able to perform.
@@Kiskaloo yeah even the a330-900 has low sales compared to its predecessor.
@@rawmango1321Not true, the dash 800 was one of, if not the first built as it was used as a test aircraft prior to certification.
As of March 2024, there were seven A330-800s in revenue service.
it's a lost cause and a commercial failure.
Fuel consumption per passenger in cruise:
1. Boeing 737 MAX 8: 2 to 2.6 liters per 100 km.
2. Airbus A320neo: 2.1 to 2.4 liters per 100 km.
3. Airbus A321neo: 2.2 to 2.5 liters per 100 km.
4. Boeing 737-900ER: 2.3 to 2.8 liters per 100 km.
5. Boeing 787-9: 2.5 to 3 liters per 100 km.
6. Airbus A330-900neo: 2.5 to 2.8 liters per 100 km.
7. Airbus A350-900: 2.6 to 3 liters per 100 km.
8. Boeing 787-10: 2.6 to 3.2 liters per 100 km.
9. Airbus A350-1000: 2.7 to 3.2 liters per 100 km.
10. Boeing 777-300ER: 3 to 3.3 liters per 100 km.
11. Boeing 747-8: 3.1 to 3.4 liters per 100 km.
12. Airbus A380: 3.2 to 3.5 liters per 100 km.
13. Airbus A330-300: 3 to 3.5 liters per 100 km.
14. Boeing 767-300ER: 3.5 to 4 liters per 100 km.
A longer list including older planes:
1. Boeing 737 MAX 8: 2 to 2.6 liters per 100 km.
2. Airbus A320neo: 2.1 to 2.4 liters per 100 km.
3. Airbus A321neo: 2.2 to 2.5 liters per 100 km.
4. Boeing 737-900ER: 2.3 to 2.8 liters per 100 km.
5. Boeing 787-9: 2.5 to 3 liters per 100 km.
6. Airbus A330-900neo: 2.5 to 2.8 liters per 100 km.
7. Airbus A350-900: 2.6 to 3 liters per 100 km.
8. Boeing 787-10: 2.6 to 3.2 liters per 100 km.
9. Airbus A350-1000: 2.7 to 3.2 liters per 100 km.
10. Boeing 737-800: 2.8 to 3.2 liters per 100 km.
11. Boeing 737-700: 2.9 to 3.4 liters per 100 km.
12. Boeing 777-300ER: 3 to 3.3 liters per 100 km.
13. Boeing 747-8: 3.1 to 3.4 liters per 100 km.
14. Airbus A380: 3.2 to 3.5 liters per 100 km.
15. Airbus A330-300: 3 to 3.5 liters per 100 km.
16. Boeing 767-300ER: 3.5 to 4 liters per 100 km.
17. Airbus A340-300: 3.8 to 4.2 liters per 100 km.
18. Boeing 747-400: 4.1 to 4.5 liters per 100 km.
19. Airbus A340-600: 4 to 4.5 liters per 100 km.
20. Boeing 777-200: 4 to 4.5 liters per 100 km.
21. Boeing 747-300: 4.2 to 4.7 liters per 100 km.
22. Boeing 737-400: 4.2 to 4.6 liters per 100 km.
23. Boeing 747-200: 4.4 to 4.9 liters per 100 km.
24. Boeing 737-300: 4.3 to 4.8 liters per 100 km.
25. Airbus A300-600: 4.5 to 5 liters per 100 km.
26. Boeing 767-200: 4.7 to 5.2 liters per 100 km.
27. Boeing 747-100: 4.9 to 5.3 liters per 100 km.
28. Boeing 757-200: 5 to 5.5 liters per 100 km.
29. Boeing 707-320B: 5.5 to 6 liters per 100 km.
30. Boeing 727-200: 6.5 to 7 liters per 100 km.
@@peterprokop As we know, a much higher fuel burn is required to reach cruising altitude. One of the factors that give that statisticians so much leeway to carefully chose the journey specifics to put their client in the best light, and the competition in the worst.
I seem to remember one comparrison comparing over a specific journey yet not even adjusting the fuel carried to reflect the fuel required to perform that route with a sufficient reserve.
@@neilpickup237 Yes, but for most flights, the overwhelming time is spent in cruise, so I think it is a useful, simple comparison. The reality of the business is many orders of magnitude more complex, with different strategies and different markets, and being able to fill the planes to a high degree, all this goes way beyond fuel consumption, but having a plane that consumes less fuel is obviously a factor that widens margins for success.
@@peterprokop I agree that most of the time is at cruise, however when the figures are so close, as they often are with competing aircraft, it doesn't take much to change the order.
@@neilpickup237the high fuel consumption in climb is offset by the very low fuel consumption in the descent. I’d say they almost balance each other out, so cruise fuel burn is quite a good estimation of overall fuel economy, especially when it’s a comparison between different aircraft types.
Video starts at 2:36
If you look in the description you will see the segments of the video so you don’t need to comment the time of the video when it starts
@@trevorkarran732 they were added at a later date
Its already a success in its own right and most customers who wanted it already made good use of it. It's not a failure at all. The real failure is the A330-800neo.
I agree. This guy is smug and a bit douchey to be honest with you and you can tell he is pro-Airbus. He should haven’t the platform he has.
@@hungfu2422 he literally called the 800 a flop as well, a much bigger one, the whole point of the video is thaat the -8 was a success when it came out, but now it's whole market space has already been taken over and thus, doesn't sell at all anymore, which is a fact
I'd hardly call the 787a passenger favourite nor is it 'comfortable'. The lower cabin pressure is nice, but the fact that it is too narrow for 9 abreast but too wide for 8 abreast to be economical means that all airlines bar JAL fit 9 abreast seats in economy, which are painfully narrow. The narrowness also means that the leading Business seat designs don't fit, like the Qsuite and ANA's the room. The dimmable windows are also pretty bad, often fail, and are usually locked at their darkest setting by crew, meanign that even on day flights you can't really look out the window, and so it's as though it may as well not have windows, the size is pointless when they're always darkened.
I mean the A350 is just an all round better plane, it's the right size for 9 abreast economy, can fit the best business seats, and has the same low altitude pressure as the 787. The 787-8 and -9 had initial success due to their economics for airlines and the fact that the A350 and 330neo didn't exist at the time, but they've never really been a favourite among passengers, the A380 and A350 have always been the favourite of passengers since their launches. The thing that doomed the 330neo (especially the -800) is that it came too late, the 787-8 had already gobbled up that demand, and now, as Coby mentions, that market segment is being cannibalised by narrow bodies, mainly airbus's own A321neo.
Lie flat in C in Qatar 788 was pretty comfortable if you ask me 😊
I have travelled a lot of airlines Dreamliner's, but i faced darkening of windows by FA's only the US carriers. Also the A350 is being made up in a 10 abreast seating. French bee has already using it and Airbus has an option in its Airspace cabins for its customers. The 777 had a 9 abreast layout in the starting which was done to 10 abreast in their future variants.
@@planelover234 Indeed. I have booked a trip from YYZ-ICN via Korean Air's 787. Imagine my initial horror when I found out that the plane was changed to a 777. I had thought that it was going to be 10 abreast seating but when I was asked to choose my seats again, I found out that it was still 9 abreast in a 3-3-3 configuration. Had to do a bit of celebration knowing that it wasn't going to be quite the sardine can I thought it would be.
Comfort depends on who you're flying with, and airlines are known for going against recommended seat layouts.
The dimmable windows are also just an option in the A350.
Already a superior product in my book.
Emirates did convert 20 787-9s to 787-8 in 2023, so its more than 2 orders over 4 years.
I would also imagine a handful of United's remaining ~150 787-9 order will be converted as well to fly less popular routes to Asia and Africa.
For a variant that was a bit niche, selling over 400 units is a success.
The 787-8 is the only dreamliner variant flown by smaller airlines like LOT, PIA, Biman, Uzbekistan and I think Boeing expected a lot of smaller new airlines in Asia and Eastern Eruope when they announced the plane 2 decades ago, which never grew enough to order the plane.
The B787-8 probably has good hot and high airfield performance as well as short field.
@heylookarealdinosaur pia does not operate 787 8
LOT have both -8s and -9s Dreamliners in their fleet.
Some mid to long-haul LCCs use 788s too e.g. Scoot, ZipAir, perhaps as their high-density seat config means that the 788 is already big enough for their routes e.g. Scoot seats ~325 passengers on their aircraft
I don't know why it's not selling; just think of all the free ladders and other random parts you get with your purchase
I think out of the 787 family, the -10ER would be the most useful addition. After finishing up the MAX and the 777X, I think it would be perfectly timed to replace a lot of the older 777-200ER’s with range. After that, I would start working on the new NMA.
yes, Vote to 787-10 ER
It can be for sure, but it thinks have to be thinked well since the market is already busy and occupy by the a350-900. Also, a think a 10er male hurt the 777x sales. So if of to Boeing from who they want to sell.
do think it is need right now with the B777-9, although the fate of B777-8 seems to be sealed as a mostly freight counterpart
MAX and X are failures !
@@sergiolaurencio7534Learn english. It's "thought" not "thinked" !!!
Looks like the 787-8 did its job of scooping up 767 replacements, but the 9 and 10 are just financially better choices. And long range single isle airplanes just chow down on the lower end of the 787-8 market. So long as the 787-9 and -10 sell, it really doesn’t matter to Boeing that the 787-8 has stalled. Maybe the 787-8 might find a new role in a derivative market such as a freighter, tanker or patrol aircraft. Time will tell. The 737-800 airframe with pieces mixed in from other models has found a new life as a set of military derivatives which are pretty hot sellers right now.
Great video! Maybe the 787-8 could fly on longer routes where the a321xlr can't fly ahd the 787-9 is not worth the money
Also to mention, 787-8 can carry nearly 3 times of the cargo that can be carried by the A321 neo. The A321 XLR could have half the cargo capacity(Yet to released cargo capacity) of The A321 neo. 787-9 is totally worth as a pilot rated on 787 and A330, 787-9 is used on medium to long range missions whereas the A330 and the A320 family is used for small to medium range missions.
There's an oil scarcity super-cycle coming so the single aisle XLR is going to become even more popular in the future.
But it heavily compromises in the cargo capacity. Many airlines will not opt to order it as it has negligible cargo capacity when compared to medium to long haul aircraft such as A330-300.
Basically you're right with the A321neo vs 787-8, but regarding the Neo it's capacity for a average long haul cabin with a lie flat premium cabin and premium Economy is more like around 160. So the gap is bigger, but not big enough.
Usually where multiple versions are offered, the middle variant is always the most popular. It was the case for the 737 Classic (400 most popular) and the 737NG (800 most popular) and the 767 (300ER most popular). Even with the 777 most carriers went for the 777-300ER and orders for the 777-200ER dried up (787-8 sold the same number of aircraft as the 777-200ER).
Mmm 4:17 It says no other wide body has the endurance and efficiency in such a small package... Maybe for the length of the plane, but according to the technical specifications in Wikipedia, the A350-900 can carry more passengers for longer with not much more fuel, so the consumption per passenger/distance is lower on the A350. OK, the A350 is 10m longer and 4m wider, but they are in the same size class, right?, so I don't think that would be a problem...
you are a little wrong. First the 787 family and A350 family are not of the same class, they both serves different needs. Also you are comparing the fuel burn per passenger, but many airlines buys a plane to match the demand for the route.
For example an airlines needs a plane to serve an X route which has demand for 260-280 passengers a day, the best aircraft could be 787-8 as it has a two class layout of 250 and it will be efficient. If an airline uses an A350-900, there would be empty seats as A350-900 2 class capacity could be 350 passengers which would totally ruin the fuel burn per passenger.
It’s simple the -9 is the optimal configuration. It’s the best balance of Capacity vs Range. The 8 might have better range but the capacity is limiting. The 10 is also a very profitable airplane but the capacity comes with range limitations. United like the -10 because it’s perfect for East coast to Europe but it’s limited beyond that. The -8 can fly forever but the limited capacity doesn’t make up Range on many flights, so it’s a bit of a niche airplane.
In the end it’s only marginally more expensive to fly a -9 on a most routes vs an -8 with greater room for profits.
@@planelover234 I mean, according to the Wiki statistics, that I don't know how accurate they are, even if we fill the A350 only to the 242 passengers that the 787-8 has typically in a 2 class configuration, the airbus is 4% more efficient per passenger. If we fill the A350, then that would increase quite a bit. But in any case, the 787 is cheaper, so they have to take that into account as well.
@@javiTests I have done some math for both aircraft with 242 passenger. I got the fuel burn per passenger for 100km for 787-8 as 3.85 liter and for the A350-900 i got it as 4.31 liters. So in this case 787-8 is more efficient.
At the end these both plane serve different roles.
@@planelover234 The A350 has a fuel capacity of 110.5 tons, a range of 15,372 km and for 242 passengers, that would mean 2.97 kg/passenger/100km, and the 787-8 has a fuel capacity of 101.3 tons, 13530 km and for 242 passengers that results in 3.09 kg/passenger/100km. I'm going with the data in the wikipedia, that again, I'm not sure if it's 100% reliable or not... But apart from the difference in price, probably the 787-8 can have less cabin crew, so it's cheaper in that sense as well
I flown in an Airbus A321neo from Mumbai to Singapore
You also must consider that airlines are considering resale value more, and there’s lots of leasing going on, and leasing companies don’t want to touch the -8 because of its much higher depreciation rate vs. -9
Airlines have switched to all single isle planes for domestic flights and I think you might start seeing more single isle international flights, Airlines are starting to run more trip on the same routes than buy bigger planes to offer more flexibility while keeping costs down. I would not be surprised to see a domestic style first class on an international long haul to save some cash for some of the flights.
The 787-9 is clearly the fav. Range and Pax have made it super popular
This is probably the only time the middle child gets all the love and affection it craves for....
I don’t know If that’s really the case from the capacity stance. The -8 is not only 12m longer than the 321 but also a meter and a half wider. The reason the capacity looks similar is because the -8 can offer lie flat seats while the 321 is being measured using recliners.
Its not a particularly valuable route but there is one route the 787-8 does very well although I flew it in the intended 8 seat economy configuration with JAL. Daily flights between Japan and the European land mass its long range and economical enough to do it but small enough that you will fill up the flight. The seat size quietness of the engines and better air were definately a saviour on those 13-14 hour flights. So much so that unless i can get a business or premium economy on the real cheap im not sure id do it any other way(Im doing the flights again in February.)
I’ve been on one of those. An Ana one from itm to hnd. I live in Japan if you’re wondering
The problem with the NEO is that it is stuffed full with tiny economy seats, so it is only low cost economy customers. The growth is in premium seats that airlines didn't plan for.
Boeing needs to get their Quality Control in check.
Boeing needs to think beyond the next quarter.
Kinda reminds me of the path the 767-200 and 400 took.
I enjoy flying on the 787 over any competing Airbus. I am sure Boeing does not care which variant is selling, just that they are selling.
Boeing's original plan was to have a bigger more efficient wings for -9 and -10; then to cut costs , it settled on one wing - that was the issue in my view. -8 with a bigger wing would have made a perfect LR type of aircraft some thing like the ultra long haul. And -9 would be in the ball park of today's 350-900 interns of range. And -10 would have at least a better looking 7000=NM range which is restricted today.
Maiby in the future when a "NEO" of the 787 show off, it may have bigger winds.
great video as always but 787-8's max range is ~8800 mi, i think you mixed up nmi and mi lol
The 787-8 is 13500kms
The 787-9 has 14200kms
The 787-10has 11800kms
If A321XLR configured in a SINGLE configuration, it can accommodate 244 passengers, but the maximum range drops to 4,000 nm, hence direct compete only for budget airline with 4000 nm range fly w/ B787-8 only, and this segment are very less...
I'd love if the new plane between the biggest 737 and smallest 787 is a 2-3-2 layout in economy. It is by far the best and why I really enjoy flying on the 767 over a 777, 787, etc
Good analysis as always, Coby.
I agree the B787-8 is feeling the pinch from A321neos on the short end and A350-900 & B787-9 in the long end.
I love the 787 because of its range and its design
No body in their right mind wants to be stuck in a narrow body for over 4 hours when they could be in a 787!
If the cost of a narrowbody flight is cheaper a lot of passengers will use them.
For economy I'd take a 757 over a 9-abreast 787 any day.
Yeah, you have narrow seats on a narrow body. Thus it's less comfortable. Fly a wide body and you will have wide seats. Far more comfortable than sitting on a chicken roost.
At least that's the argument presented. Not that it makes absolutely no sense.
😉
@@jantjarks7946 Have you ever flown on a widebody? The seats are no wider to any degree that makes any difference, and if you're on a 777 in economy chanced are that it's even smaller given they're mostly 10 abreast rather than the 9 they used to have
@@jantjarks7946
On a recent trip I flew on a 737, a 787-9 and a Airbuss 220 (AKA Bombardier C) - The 787 was the worst part of the trip. The seats are only 17 inches wide compared to 18 on the narrow-body planes.
I'd hardly call it a failure given that this subvariant alone has outsold the entire order book of the A330Neo. As you mentioned, it's a replacement for the 767-300ER and has done it on an almost 1-to-1 basis.
don’t worry 787 you’re still one of my favorites
Your voice reminds me of that guy on Princess Bride.
You mentioned how the 787-8 is supposed to connect secondary markets point to point…long thin routes, etc. You forget that the legacy carriers are not built for that, and/or don’t have the infrastructure to support that…other than Southwest…all other or legacy carriers still rely on the hub & spoke system. So….the legacy carriers need to ‘adapt’ to what the 787-8 can do…which in today’s world…I don’t see that happening soon.
Iberia will get the first A321 XLR next month.
After receiving it and training and crew familiarisation around Europe,
It will go into long-haul service in November serving Boston from Madrid. Subsequent aircraft will serve Washington.
It will be replacing the current A330 service.
Tells you a lot about the effect on demand for the smaller wide bodies.
I think if finding pilots wasn't an issue we'd be seeing far more secondary city routes using the 787-8
The pilot shortage is a myth perpetuated by airlines. I've known plenty of unemployed pilots.
I still prefer widebodies over narrowbodies. I’m 6 foot and 190 pounds notice to comfort difference on a Transcon flight in widebody versus narrowbody.
the 787-8 just looks weird to me, too short for its wingspan
Have to also remember that airlines wanted more 757s, but were told to just wait a little bit longer for the introduction of the B787. The introduction ended up VERY late, disappointing many, but Boeing stopped the 757 and left customers with no real option to replace the 757/767 at the time. The early cancellation brought in desperately-needed cash that would have been spent on the 757/767. Airlines now want max range with the -9, but the -10 is just waiting for the right moment. Airbus came in with TWO amazing twin-widebodies and plenty of short-duration builds. Need a new widebody with the right capacity with current technology? The A330neo is a fantastic option. The 787 is great, too, but the delays have been exhausting for airlines, and some are moving over to the A330 to get the lift in the air. Now that pilots are trained on Airbus, the airline is more likely to stick with them because of the ease of pilot cross-training.
It is so sad to see my favorite airplane dying😭
Is not dying, the demand and the work is up there( well what plane you mean?)
@@sergiolaurencio7534 the 787-10
The 787-9 is really the variant that made the 787. Since narrowbody aircraft can now serve long-haul routes, it obviously makes sense that the 787 would only really need to serve ultra-long haul routes. The 787-9 strikes the best balance between capacity, range, and economy per seat. It's incredible to me that this plane has opened up routes like Perth to London and New York to Auckland. While the 787-8 does have a very long range, that range falls short of the 787-9. I can see why most airlines have opted for the 787-9 over the other 2 variants
I had the privilege to watch many Boeing 737 land at Midway during a weird yet wonderful camping trip. I am not an aviation expert...but Boeing has a lot to answer for.
the 787-8 is my favorite. Big enough for transpacific flights, small enough to where I don’t have to wait 10 billion years to disembark/wait for immigration
I am not disagreeing with your viewpoint on the better economics of the A321 XLR for most of the missions the 787-8 was designed for.
But there is one aspect that I want to mention - the passengers. Ignoring specially configured all-business planes, I don't know a single person who would want to spend 11 hours on a narrowbody. Going back to my childhood days, you didn't know what type of plane you were going to be on basically all the way until you saw it at the gate. But today, most if not all airlines tell you during the booking process what type you will be flying on (again, ignoring the occasional aircraft swap for various reasons). And even if you don't know what an A321 or a Boeing 787 is, many airlines will provide the seat map directly, or even if they don't this information is easy to find online. And if anyone has ever flown before, they will remember how tight a narrowbody feels. Even if they have never been on a widebody before, they will see the much wider plane on the seat map and think "oh yes, this is a lot better".
TL;DR - I think the number of aisles can be a deciding factor which flight to book (or not), even for average passengers, much like us aviation geeks may decide for certrain flights because of the plane being used there, just for a different reason.
2 brand new planes fell off the sky. Calls it struggles
Simple, better economics except for niche scenarios for the -9 variant.
hi coby, im watching your videos for over a year now and im rlly learning from you, tysm ❤
Everyone loves the middle child of the series, the -9
Just like the are working on a HGW version of the 787-9 and 787-10, the 787-8 has either two options
1. Let it fade as a model completely.
2. Revamp the model into a 787 light reducing the empty weight with reduced fuel capacity, folding wings to fit code d gates and 6000 nm range.
It would then be a true replace for the 767-300ER.
The 787-8 has been in production for over a decade, it is prime for a 2nd generation.
For 2, funnily enough that was half of the basis of the planned 787-3 variant. It was designed with a shorter wing with winglets as opposed to raked wingtips to fit into Code D gates, and be a direct replacement for the 763 on domestic services in Japan, being the same size as the -8. Ultimately though it was canceled and ANA and JAL went with the -8.
@@aydoyt
They cancelled the 787-3 because of delays in the entire program so added more 787-8 which they got sooner.
Given the development of the folding wing tips of the 777x, that would probably give much higher efficiency over simply shortening the wing with winglets.
Surprised, I see these guys going in and out of Boston all the time
Coby : No one's buying the 787-8. Here's Why...
Lot Airlines with 8 787-8's : Am I a joke to you?
Other airlines too...
Air India has 27 of them.
I agree he is pro airbus and comes across a bit douche bag
Royal Jordanian & Royal Air Maroc loves the 788 as well.
What about even the A340-600, not talking about the -500 too. These planes were soo much discriminated by the airlines, while they are amazing. But for the protocol, I just prefer the 787-8, for how cozier it feels like while flying over quite impressive distances over the -9/10.
Japan Airlines will replace their remaining 767s with A321neos...
I dream of a future where US Transcons go back to widebody. Not a fan of A321 from east coast to west coast. Lower cabin altitude would be great!
Why 787X is imperative with a much improved range across-the-board and higher higher gross weight.
Currently Air Tanzania is taking delivery of a brand new 787-8, 5H-TCR, From CHS-ZNZ
If it's Boeing, I'm not going!
787-9. The only middle child that was not forgotten
erm, this comment is, according to my calculations, 90% copied 🤓☝️
@@ermWhaddaSigma wdym?
That 321-XLR landing was a bit ropey 🤣
A long range for an aircraft is fine if you're dealing with destinations without refueling capacity, it's no good for passengers unless the cabin is comfortable enough to make long distance travel a nightmare.
Well, we can start with the fact the 787-9 is better-suited as a 777-200ER replacement than the 787-8. I expect no more 787-8 sales, especially once the 787-10ER arrives with its circa 7,000 nautical mile range.
The 787-10ER won't be a thing (atleast in the 787-10ER you think about) which is confirmed by Boeing. This is due to the new longer range not being a new varaint but just a upgrade to the 787-10.
Actually EK did last year as part of an order rejig
If the long haul low capacity market is cannibalized by the -9, perhaps Boeing can rework the -8 and optimize it for short haul high capacity routes. It's not the biggest market out there, but it's not nothing and gives the -8 another purpose for its customers.
Ironically, this would've been the 787-3 that was under development for Japanese airlines. A short haul 787. Perhaps this is a chance to kinda revive that project.
I thought the -8 was originally planned as the middle version, and the -10 is actually two sizes up
Thrust per passenger:
1. Boeing 737-900ER: 248 lbf per passenger.
2. Boeing 737 MAX 8: 267 lbf per passenger.
3. Airbus A321neo: 270 lbf per passenger.
4. Airbus A380: 328 lbf per passenger.
5. Airbus A330-300: 327 lbf per passenger.
6. Airbus A330-900neo: 327 lbf per passenger.
7. Airbus A320neo: 340 lbf per passenger.
8. Boeing 767-300ER: 344 lbf per passenger.
9. Airbus A350-900: 383 lbf per passenger.
10. Airbus A350-1000: 404 lbf per passenger.
11. Boeing 777-300ER: 419 lbf per passenger.
12. Boeing 747-8: 440 lbf per passenger.
13. Boeing 787-10: 478 lbf per passenger.
14. Boeing 787-9: 500 lbf per passenger.
757?
If the design and economics are so good, why not use composits for the 737 and have a new 797 with the same construction? The 777 might have gotten better fuel burn without the carry over fuselage build.
No one is buying it? Bullocks!!!
The 320 has fewer seats to fill as compared to the 787 -8 which may help when it comes to the economics of flying with all of the seats filled . And the range of the 320 get's it into the long haul market with a cheaper cost per mile than the wide bodies
The prevalence and engineering superiority of the 787-9 really overshadows the sales result of the dash 8.
Thanks for dropping betterhelp. Sub earned! 😃
The 787-8 has lavatories at the rear of the plane while the 787-9 does not. Quite a consideration if you're seated down the back on a long haul flight.😂
You released a video last year about how Airbus had reconfigured & adapted the A330neo to be able to preform shorter flights with higher capacity then a A321/737 MAX can provide, could Boeing hypothetically make similar enhancements? Even if it would be somewhat made redundant by a future 797, that jet is likely a decade or more away from entering commercial service.
All 3 are good!😊
For reference the A321NEO has over 6009 orders since its release.
you need to go to Avalon airshow next year would be great to see a video of you there
if i owned an airline it would consist of mostly 787-8 and -9s
This is a good video but every time you called the 787-8 a "Dash-8" I start thinking about the De Havilland Q400s
Took a Dreamliner 787-8London to Japan (British Airways) recently. Worst long haul I've been on in 30 years of long haul flying. Hopeless aircraft. Give me an Airbus 380 any day.
I got on a 787-8 and its one of my favorites
Would have been nice to compare the 787-9 with the -9 & -10
10 hours in a single aisle ( airlines need to show me a pretty big price drop b4 I’m doing it) I used to be airline staff and I met many an A321. It a nightmare getting off 10-15 minutes at least vs a twin aisle even if using only 1 jetway. Tell me I am wrong ( unless you only fly business class)
The max 10 better never see the light of day. I'll fly an a320 on a short long haul flight if the seating is comfortable enough. But I'm never flying a max that far, let alone over an ocean. Icelandair replaced their Orlando service that was a 757 with a 737 max. Sorry, not doing that anymore.
The XLR will not be able to hold 206 and travele the 4K with range no way more like 140 people and 3500nm is more like it
See the airport i work at, several times a week these dreamliners get AOG, seem to have engines issues.
IMO, the NMA should be a narrowbody too
Becuase i appreciate a presentation that explains things well without usiing an AI voice, i dont skip ads for this channel. I skip ads for AI voices.
Not 1 single clip of Jetstar 787-8 when they have an entire widebody fleet of just 787-8's....
It's a lot simpler than that. The 787-9 is superior in every way including range and cost almost the same to fly per trip. The only advantage the 787-8 has that Boeing priced it cheaper and that it WAS available sooner at the beginning of the program. However, it doesn't actually cost Boeing significantly less to build and it is only cheaper because of steeper discounts. Lately Boeing will rather just sell the -9 rather than discount the -8 so there is no incentive for Airlines to buy it.
--
What Boeing needs to do once it gets its head out of it's own ass on the recent QA issues is to bring the IGW program uniformly to all three variants. That is every version of the 787 should have the same wing box, active tail and increased 572,000 lbs MTOW (currently the -8 is uniquely at 502,500 whereas the -9/-10 are are 561,500). The 787 has plenty of of fuel capacity in the wings and is largely limited by the fuel weight it can carry after loading up on passengers and cargo due to MTOW. This will bring the operating range of the three variants to roughly 9,400 nm, 7,900 nm and 6,900 nm respectively. This will give customers a unique reason to buy the 787-8 again -- to fly those ultra long range city pairsfor which the 787-9 has insufficient range and the A350-900ULR is a bit too big to fill.
11 hours on a A-321? God, what a torture..
Ay Iraqi airlines have some of them!
American does too. I fly them a lot to FCO from PHL
Nice video. A question: why the main competitor is a330 but in problem 2 you are focusing in a320 ?
The 787 is just too small.
I recently flew on an ANA 787 in business class with a 2x2x2 configuration…
A KLM 787 in business class with a 1x2x1 configuration (herringbone) (which I hated)
And another 787 by ANA with a business class 1x2x1 configuration.
The plane is small.
The A350 is a better plane.
Over time, the short variant of an aircraft model falls out of favor.
From the mid 1970s until 1984, Boeing sold very few 727-100s.
The 767-200 and -200ER fell out of favor by the mid 1990s.
Even today, the A321neo way outsells the A320neo and the A319neo.