Roger,Thanks for the info CheersQuote:
Hi RTFQ and welcome to the forum. The 787-9's have been acquired primarily for the purpose of replacing the aging 767-300's which have had to be kept operational longer than originally envisaged due to the well known delay's in the Dreamliner development programme. They weren't procured as a replacement for the 777-200 although they have not dissimilar operating capabilities.
IIRC the 777-200's are on average about 10 years old and I know the refurbishment programme with be completed on all 8 of them by the end of this month.
In terms of the upscale 767-300 v 787-9 there's actually been a significant boost in capacity from 230 seats and five tonnes of cargo capacity, (sometimes this is compromised if the pax load is at max on longer flights) to 302 seats and the full 15 tonnes of cargo can be carried regardless of pax load), so at least 3 times the cargo capacity which is especially useful for fresh products into Asia.
Further there's a meaningful difference in cruise speed with the old 767-300 at 870 k.p.h. and the new Dreamliner at 910 k.p.h. as well as range advantage with the new plane.
Dreamliner's were designed to be 20% more efficient on a seat mile basis than the 767-300's but I understand they're getting in excess of that, I hear whispers of 24% fuel savings per seat mile.
No heavy maintenance is due on the new Dreamliner's for the first 9 years of operation and they got these new aircraft for a real bargain compared to retail. $150m each was mentioned at the annual meeting, I believe the current retail is over $250m per plane. 2 more due next year.