777 actually burns less fuel per seat mile than A333, despite posts to the contrary

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I don’t believe there is any other widebody or any other aircraft that can seat as many passengers as a 763 or 764 can in a typical domestic first/coach configuration.

 
787?

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

 
787?

 
Yep - both the 787-8s and the -9s

 

[WorldTraveler]

Given that the 787 has a wingspan about 30 feet greater than the 764, even if the 787 can land at LGA, it will impact taxi and gate operations. And I may be fuzzy on the history but I thought Boeing had proposed a short range 787 for Japanese carriers and it was never launched.

The real benefit of the 787 would be if it were in a domestic configuration; IIRC, no US airline operates or has operated a widebody aircraft at LGA in a standard int'l configuration on a consistent basis. Even if domestic longhaul flights are added, US carrier int'l configurations are not necessarily conducive for international ops.

And AA, DL, and UA do still have 757s and 763ERs in their fleets which can be used for the near term - if demand supports it.

by that point, Boeing might have developed a new generation narrowbody that has as a requirement the ability to operate from LGA on longhaul domestic flights which is what the 757 and 767 were designed to do with the 757 intentionally designed with high performance to take a large aircraft to relatively small airfields.

Lifting of the LGA perimeter rule could provide a big incentive for Airbus and Boeing to deliver a high performance large capacity long range domestic aircraft.

and it could also provide a specialty use for aging aircraft like the 767 that have a performance advantage but have been surpassed by newer technology international widebodies such as the 333 and newer generations of the 777 which are designed for efficient longhaul operations.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Given that the 787 has a wingspan about 30 feet greater than the 764, even if the 787 can land at LGA, it will impact taxi and gate operations. And I may be fuzzy on the history but I thought Boeing had proposed a short range 787 for Japanese carriers and it was never launched.

The real benefit of the 787 would be if it were in a domestic configuration; IIRC, no US airline operates or has operated a widebody aircraft at LGA in a standard int'l configuration on a consistent basis. Even if domestic longhaul flights are added, US carrier int'l configurations are not necessarily conducive for international ops.

 
I find it fascinating that in the post above you're capable to wax eloquent about the B787, yet not just a few posts before that, you were preaching almost as gospel that nothing compares to DLs 763 and 764.  No narrative to sell, right?
 
With respect to wing span, I think the difference between the 763 vs 787 is roughly 40 feet but only roughly 25 feet difference between the B787 vs B764 wingspan.  (You were so close to making another WT Fabricated Fact) ... ... ...

 

[topDawg]

Unless you have a really wide ass, most people don't notice the extra half inch of width on an Airbus. What is noticeable is seat pitch, and that's entirely arbitrary. Airlines can (and do) change that.

I can safely say wide ass isn't the problem. However in 2-3-2 you have much less of a chance in getting a middle seat than on a 777. 
but i take any space I can get in Y. Even if its an half of a inch. (never know, might need that space if you are stuck in between two wide loads.) 
 

This is when it pays to not be a man of height...

lucky
 

Meto,
Your point is valid that only CO and DL wanted the 767-400 but that precisely answers the question as to why it was a commercial failure compared to the 330.

I still have the packet that Airbus distributed to DL employees when they came to pitch the 332 as an L1011 replacement. Given that DL’s primary use of the L10 by the time they were ready to order the 764 or 330 was domestic, the advantage the 764 had over the 332 was lighter weight.

Further, one of DL’s requirements was that the 764 be able to land at LGA, the same requirement that was made by multiple airlines of the L10 and D10 at the time those aircraft were designed. Remember that DL is still petitioning the PANYNJ to lift the perimeter restriction but even if that does not happen, it is still very likely that the 767 in either the 763ER or 764ER variant will be back at LGA given that DL added a lot of capacity to LGA with the slot transfer and has been able to make it work. NYC will continue to grow but airport capacity likely will not. Eventually, slot value will dictate larger aircraft and that could trickle UP to the 767s. Remember that DL is planning to convert int’l 763ERs to domestic configuration in the next few years to replace some of the non-ER 763s that will be retired. The 764s have enough life left in them that they could do the same thing years after the 763s are gone. I don’t believe there is any other widebody or any other aircraft that can seat as many passengers as a 763 or 764 can in a typical domestic first/coach configuration.

Dawg,
Thank you for confirming what I said regarding the 333’s fuel economy on a similar configuration basis for TATL routes. That is the basis I said had to be used for comparison.
However, I never suggested that AA replace their 777s before the end of their usable life. I have said that AA appears to be pushing their 777s onto their TATL network while putting their newer technology aircraft on TPAC routes.

Remember also that AA chose to buy BOTH the 763ER and the A300 and the reason was as much because of the low cost of acquiring the 333s; the two weren’t comparable aircraft in terms of performance.
AA chose to order 737s and A320 family aircraft for much of the same reason.
AA chose to order ONLY the 787 family for its new generation widebodies – other than the 773ERs.
IN contrast, DL has intentionally chosen to segment its Atlantic and Pacific fleets with different aircraft for new models– the 330 and 350.
So, both strategies have been used by both AA and DL and none of us here have enough information to be able to say if either was valid or not.
Still, my point was that the 333 in comparable configurations burns less fuel on typical 4000 mile segments.

E,
On TATL sectors, the difference in speed between the 330 and 777 is negligible. Even on LAX-HND, the roundtrip difference between the 763ER and the 787 is only 20 minutes. The only real difference in speed is on direct, local routes which is pretty much just JFK. For connections, it all has to do with how well set up hub schedules are.

same airplane with better costs. United is doing the same exact thing. 

 

[topDawg]

 
787?

FWIW the 787 is a little bit bigger than the 767. So a 787-8 would hold more in a domestic configuration than a 763 and be pretty close with a 764. 

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

FWIW the 787 is a little bit bigger than the 767. So a 787-8 would hold more in a domestic configuration than a 763 and be pretty close with a 764. 

 
Yep-The -8 is both longer and wider than the 762 & 763's and the 787-9 is longer and wider than the 764

 

[WorldTraveler]

Size is precisely the problem. Even if the 787 can land at LGA, the larger size might make it impossible to fit into gates. But it is all conjecture since there are very few widebodies at LGA now and AA is noot. Evev using 757s at LGA IIRC it is doubtful there will be a huge future demand for an aircraft that exceeds thse currently available but not used.