Hello All,
A few weeks ago Avianca announced that it would be using the 787-8 as its only twin-aisle passenger aircraft. Up until now, Avianca also operated six A330-200s and one 787-9 as twin-aisle passenger aircraft.
In this blog post, we will analyze the reasons for Avianca’s choice.
An increasingly unpopular variant
Boeing’s 787-8 popularity is dwindling. The type only has 40 outstanding orders and a significant portion is at risk of no delivery at all (for example, the 10 for the Republic of Iraq). The 787-8 entered into service more than three years later than envisioned in 2011.
While Boeing delivered a large number of them thereafter, orders and deliveries dropped sharply once the 787-9 entered into passenger service in 2014. There are several reasons for the higher 787-9 popularity.
The 787-8 is the “guinea pig” variant of the Dreamliner program. The aircraft suffers from an overweight airframe compared with envisioned at launch. Boeing applied the lessons learned from the 787-8 to the 787-9. As a result, the latter is a far better design.
There is also not much production commonality between the 787-8 and the larger 787-9/-10. Therefore, producing the 787-8 is expensive. Boeing is reluctant to offer the 787-8 in sales campaigns at a competitive price.
The 787-9 has approximately 20% more passenger capacity than the 787-8, and close to 30% more cargo (36 LD3s vs 28). The trip operating costs of the 787-9 are nowhere near 20% higher than those of the -8. Therefore, the 787-9 is a more profitable aircraft than the -8 across the network than the -9. It is a similar situation to the one between the A330-800 and A330-900.
A disadvantage working in Avianca’s favor
Lastly the 787-8 shares the same wing as the larger 787-9/-10. As is usually the case with aircraft families, the smaller variant has an oversized wing. The oversized wing penalizes the aircraft during cruise due to higher drag than necessary.
However, an oversized wing has its advantages in some situations, notably for takeoffs out of high and/or hot airports. Bogota’s El Dorado airport is at around 2500m above sea level. Operating at such altitude, with significantly less dense air, is challenging.
An aircraft that has suitable performance at sea level would struggle at high altitudes. Conversely, an aircraft with excess power or an oversized wing at sea level is far more suitable at high-altitude airports.
Avianca operates a single 787-9 at the moment. Therefore, the carrier knows well the payload limitations of the larger variant compared with the 787-8. In the high altitude, the 787-8 can probably carry more payload and fly further than the 787-9.
A type also better suited to the carrier’s network
It is though worth noting that Aeromexico, which also operates at high altitudes in Mexico city (2230m), favors the 787-9 despite the performance limitations.
Aeromexico favors the 787-9 because there is more international passenger traffic in and out of Mexico City in the first place. Mexico City has a larger population than Bogota, and the country welcomes more foreign tourists. Aeromexico flew before the COVID-19 pandemic to Europe, but also Asia.
Avianca’s network is more limited. The carrier flies to Madrid (also from Cali and Medellin), Barcelona, Los Angeles, and London. Avianca also started flights to Munich before the pandemic. Avianca also flies twin-aisle aircraft to some Latin American and US destinations.
Conclusion
The unusual operating conditions of Avianca’s hub in Bogota mean that the oversized wing of the 787-8, which would normally be a weakness, is a strength under such circumstances. Separately, the carrier has less leisure traffic than other major carriers in the region. Therefore, operating the smaller 787-8 makes more sense.
Note though that there are not many carriers that face similarly unusual high altitude operations for long-haul flights. Therefore, the boost for the 787-8 is not going to be widespread. Instead, it means that the smallest Dreamliner variant will stay in service for a extended period of time for carriers with specific operational constraints.
EPSILON AVIATION 
Avianca is not alone in their reasoning. Mexicana agreed, and so did Ethiopian, and for the very same reasons: they all share high and hot airports. The Dreamliner was launched in Dec 2009, and A330-800, which shares very similar characteristics, in October 2020. Yet although both planes are slow sellers, Airbus has fared considerably worse to date, just 15 planes sold by now. Aeromexico does not really favour 787-9 over the smaller 8, they have similar numbers of each. The thing is they have different routes to cater. WB which is the difficult one when departing from MEX to NRT and ICN. To Europe they depart EB, no problem here. Then they have several routes to South America that are not too long, but they do have skinny low seasons to cope. Avianca does not have any long WB routes departing from BOG, nor will they ever have (the Pacific Ocean is just immense there), and their European routes are EB on departure. Here again they have several not too long but positively skinny routes. For the very same reason Avianca went for the somewhat unusual A319s, and will probably be good A220 customers, same as Aeromexico. Pre Covid Mexico had 20 million foreign visitors by air per year. Colombia does not even have a fourth of that figure.
LikeLike
I have checked a few figures which I would like to share. Bogota for takeoffs is a much more challenging airport than Mexico, being closer to the equator, hence hotter, higher (2,548 m v 2,230 for MEX) and having a shorter runway (3,800 m v 3,950 m for MEX). Also a few relevant data for 787-8 and the closest Airbus option, A330-800. Max wing load (i.e. MTOW/surface area of wings) 605 kg/m2 v 540. Min runway length 2,600 and 2,300 m. NEO has a much better field performance, and this should also apply to 900, provided it is not fully loaded with fuel, having the same wings, engines and MTOW, but 3-5 extra tonnes of OEW and up to 2 more tonnes of payload.
LikeLike
thanks for sharing Luis!
LikeLike