Is The Boeing 787-8 A True 767 Successor? 

Absolutely! And the winglets make it look even more amazing.

widget787 exactly 16ft heigh!

high*

@@747simmer4 yeah they are impressive. Aviation Partners once tested blended winglets on the 747-400, those were even bigger. But they never sold them or they were not ordered my any Airline.

I totally agree. My points exactly. Well said

@col loc indeed. Boeing got too complacent

@col loc Not entirely ture. B757's sales were dried up and ceased production before cross Atlantic single aisle aircraft becomes a thing. And a re-engined B767 will be competing head to head with the 787, which is totally not acceptable commercially. The best and only choice for Boeing is still the NMA project which slots right between A321XLR and A330-800, although that's not coming any time soon.

The A330-900 is way too large and the -800 has the same problem as the 787-8: too heavy and too much range.

@col loc perhaps you should look back in the history book. The A380 was delayed by some 3 yrs when it entered service in 2007. That means that its original EIS was 2004 which was also the same year the (B777NG) B777-300ER which can seat some 400pax entered service. That means that the A380 was actually competing against the newest, largest and most efficient twin jet from boeing for sales at that time and the B777 certainly did not crush the competition which was the A380 as you were hoping for. Many airlines still ordered both the aircraft types with Emirates finally operating both types in the hundreds. One other thing you failed to realised is that the engine technology back then could not support the heavier stretched B777X airframe. The B777-300ER is already the largest possible twin jet aircraft with optimised range and payload capabilities derived from the B777 classic (B777-200ER). Stretching the B777-300ER back then and shortening its range will result in a suboptimal aircraft. It will flop like the non-er variant of the B777-300. Another point is that although Boeing did not publicly announce continuous improvement in their products like airbus, it does not mean that they did not have them. For one, Boeing's products improvement are mainly centered around the engines supplier, GE & RR. PIP are introduced from time to time as long as the product maintained in the mainstream. Secondly airbus only announced significant improvements or changes to the product lines. There are many more small improvements that are not worthy of a press conference. Likewise it is the same with boeing. Many small improvements hardly worthy of publication still gets implemented in the aircraft but these improvements could amount to something over the span of several years. So I hardly think even if Boeing did everything right, they would have crushed airbus. It is a duopoly market after all. The stronger the light the darker the shadow.

Or the a330neo could replace the 767

Its not that easy as the 787-8 is way too heavy and has too much range for most 767 missions. Same for the A330neo.

It doesn't have the performance of a 757

Probably not, as they expected the 787 to replace it completely :)

The Anonyous Gamer the 767 is a heavier & therefore less efficient airframe. If it were upgraded with composite sections & new engines it would still fall behind the 787. Boeing is still producing the 767-300F but only for cargo flights. While still an historic plane, people expect more for their passenger service. Let's wait & see.😊✌

A330-800 Neo fits perfectly to replace the 767's.

@@defencover7697 it's heavier than the 787-9

Not really , it's just a stop gap to what is really required. Too small of a capacity to replace the 767

@Gandalf4568 I heard Ryanair is planning a 4-4 layout on their 737 MAXes😂🤣 Yeah, the 3-4-3 sucks, 3-3-3 was way better

@@PlanesAndGames732 I like the 2-3-2 config

@@rak7673er That one fits perfectly on the 767s and A330s

That doesn't address short flight high capacity service.

But fuel burn wise, 338 lags behind 788, and the gap can be as wide as 6~10%. Worse still, 339 isn't far behind per trip, i.e. significantly cheaper per seat. Airbus really need to sharpen their pencil to make it attractive. Meanwhile, 339 is much closer to 789/781 while being cheaper, and to some 9-abreast LCCs, 339 is unbeatable.

Samir Graeber but wasn’t the a330 meant to replace the a300 and a310

Ewan Clegg sort of but it was more optimised to be better than the 767, whereas the a310 is a mma the a330 is a proper long haul aircraft

@@JSG003 actually seating capacity wise, the A310 is 2 size smaller than the A330-200 and rivals the B767-200. A 1 size smaller A330 would be similar to the seating capacity of the A300 instead and would rival the B767-300ER.

@@chingweixion621 But isn't 332 already having cost advantage over 763? Just that 788 is even better than 332 or reworked 338.

@@steinwaldmadchen yes and no. The A332 cost advantage is in terms of CASM but not cost per trip. Even the B787-8 barely matches the B767-300ER per trip cost on a typical transatlantic mission. They do however provide higher RASM. CASM and RASM is only one of the deciding factor. If an airline's particular route is facing intense competition, then the overall per trip cost will become a dominant as lower trip cost will equates to lower risk of unsold seats, better yield and load factor. The A332 was using its larger capacity to offset the trip risk and the same was again done with the A339, drawing airlines to upsized their aircraft with hopes of a higher Revenue potential.

Umi the 787-3 was intended to be a 767 replacement abet larger still. No one ordered it so it was cancelled. Perhaps it’s time to rethink that

There already was one....the 500 & 600 series

Aircraft that are too short and stubby like the B767-200 or the A310 are just less efficient due to the higher drag. Its not worth the tradeoff.

The A330neo 900 is too large and the 800 too heavy.

Yes but the neo is matching to the 787 which is the Boeing successor to the 767 so it has got bigger and heavier but that’s to match the 787

@@ewan_clegg06 successor in some way yes, but the 787 is no direct 1:1 767 replacement, and doesnt fit on a lot of 767 routes. The 787 in some way is more of an A330 seccessor with more range. Capacity is just a bit above the A330.

widget787 oh ok

DetestedOt You missed the point! Medium range high capacity flights.

Sacto1654 the 787-3 was offered at launched which was exactly that but no one ordered it and it was cancelled

@@jimmygee3219 The original 787-3 proposal was a plane with a range of only 3,500 nautical miles, designed for Japanese domestic routes. A lighter 787-8 with a range of around 6,000 nautical miles would at least be capable of flying from the central USA all the way to central Europe.

Sacto1654 I was more thinking of the US domestic routes the 767 services currently that the current 787 variants aren’t really efficient on. But there’s room for a few more variants in there

They do buy a newer plane. They buy a brand new 767-300F. That's why Boeing are still continuing to build the 767 (-300F).

And there's no 787F

Definition of MMA (middle of the market aircraft) varies and is dependent on manufacturer. By virtue, its legacy definition is the 2nd/next family of aircraft after the single aisle aircraft with medium seating capacity and medium flight range. In the past single aisle are considered small aircraft for short haul operations. Hence by this definition both the B767 and A330neo qualifies as MMA. However moving forward, the way to define a MMA would become more complicated. The A330neo qualifies because airbus claims that they have no gap between the A321neo and A330neo In their product lineups. Consequently this makes the A330neo the 2nd/next family of aircraft after their single aisle in airbus lineups. On the boeing side, the B787 does not qualify as the MMA despite it being the rival of the A330neo because boeing defined the MMA to be the gap that exist in between the B737max and B787 which should have been filled by the rumoured B797 which is a 2nd/next family of aircraft after their single aisle family. This however would change again in the future when boeing's NSA comes about to replace the B737max.

I heard the are planning to build a 767X.

@@rak7673er I wonder what that one would be like.

Both aircraft are too big to be a good replacement, even the smaller variants of both

A B767 max3 is not as easy and simple as it seems. The B767-300ER is not using any fly by wire. It will be a costly upgrade which will either result in the complete redesign of the aircraft or a half baked solutions like the B737max. Boeing is definitely better off starting with a clean sheet rather than reengine the B767

Thepelmenoi _guy actually, I was second

Mr. Boring sometimes the comments don’t load that’s why there’s so my people always saying first and second

ok. sorry.

iam

Do you guys even have useful input!

And!

Why?

@@karamsaviation2813 Well, gee, let's see. Two airplanes full of people DEAD! Boeing should have spent the extra money and redesigned the wing on the "Max" instead of what they did EVEN IF IT CAUSED THEM TO GO BANKRUPT! SAFETY FIRST! Also, they moved their home office back east,. At one time they were next door - arm and arm - with their Engineers! Once! AND they have major components made outside of the United States, depriving American workers of jobs. If they cannot do it right - don't do it at all.

@@fredferd965 Oh. That kind make sense, I guess