787-8 Fuel Burn

[xyeahtony]

From all the Boeing press releases and general information out there on the web, its my understanding that the 787 is supposed to have a 15-20% fuel burn advantage vs the 767 (which it was designed to replace). So why is it here its only 100kg/hr more efficient than the 767-400ER, that's about only 3% savings, and uses more fuel than all other 767 models? (767 more fuel efficient than 787? yea right) Also Boeing posts the range as 8000+nm, and here its only 7000?

[Frogiton]

And it costs something like 75% more.

[ArcherII]

It IS a 20% more fuel efficient than the 767-300ER (at the highest MTOW and RB211 engines), and about 12% more fuel efficient than the 764ER. You have to take into consideration the difference in MTOW to compare fuel consumptions.

It indeed cost a lot more to acquire though.

[xyeahtony]

It IS a 20% more fuel efficient than the 767-300ER (at the highest MTOW and RB211 engines), and about 12% more fuel efficient than the 764ER. You have to take into consideration the difference in MTOW to compare fuel consumptions.

It indeed cost a lot more to acquire though.

yeah my mistake. i have a baseline 4500kg/hr 767 burn in my head, so that's what i was going off. The cost makes sense, but the range is still off by 1000+nm. Given this, the 787 has no real advantage vs 767 except range, but the high cost will offset any additional profit/savings.

[Talentz]

Flying an 762ER at max range doesn't net alot of money because of fuel costs and distance (amount of revenue vs total flight time.) 763ER has better revenue potential, but has less range and leasing costs start to hurt. 764ER is a balanced aircraft. 788 vs 764 on a 3900nm LH, 7x daliy route, the 764 will produce a slightly higher profit. (Bigger; lower leasing costs)

The 787-8 shines at longer range.  It gives you an economical aircraft to fly thinner routes. Range and speed, for same and/or better fuel. Routes that were uneconomical or low profit, thus become better yield producing routes.

Biggest drawback is leasing.. costs roughly the same as a 763ER max range. Least it has better operating economics to pay for its expensive lease 


Talentz

[schro]

yeah my mistake. i have a baseline 4500kg/hr 767 burn in my head, so that's what i was going off. The cost makes sense, but the range is still off by 1000+nm. Given this, the 787 has no real advantage vs 767 except range, but the high cost will offset any additional profit/savings.

Of course, if the cruising speeds are different at the quoted fuel burn per period of time, it can also alter the trip's total fuel burn.... (i.e. 2 planes with the same fuel burn per hour at different cruising speeds have different total fuel burn over the same distance)...