Why Boeing Scrapped The 787-3

Boeing offers airlines three variants to the 787 Dreamliner; however, at one point, that could’ve been four with the 787-3.

The 787-3 was viewed as a game-changer for short—to medium-haul flying. It offered truckloads of efficiency and capacity, with radical wing changes enabling global operations.

However, the jet was never launched. Why was it scrapped? What is the plane, and was this the right decision?

What Is The Boeing 787-3?

Boeing introduced the 787-3 in the early 2000s as part of the broader 787 Dreamliner program. Unlike other variants in the family, its purpose stood out, with a greater focus on shorter routes.

While the 787-3 would’ve been very similar in length to the currently active and smallest variant, the 787-8, more changes would be made to the wingspan of the aircraft for adoption across certain markets.

Reporting indicated that the plane would focus on a smaller wingspan, allowing it to slot into narrower gates and, therefore, feature more airports worldwide.

Access to more gates would be possible thanks to Boeing’s plan to align it with slots that the 757 and 767 would fit into, per ICAO guidelines.

The 787-3 was expected to carry 290 to 330 passengers in a standard two-class configuration and be able to fly upwards of 5,600km (3,510 miles). Paired with the smaller wings, the jet could’ve forged a market for itself, especially acting as a replacement for airlines.

After Boeing proposed the variant, it became of interest in Japan, with orders coming only through Japan Airlines and ANA, which were generally the leading companies that expressed interest.

What Happened To The Aircraft?

Despite the concept’s appeal, the 787-3 faced challenges that meant bringing the plane to market would be easier said than done and would require investment from airlines on a significant level to make it possible.

At its core, the design had a lot of potential. The variant focused on accommodating a more narrow wingspan, which had a knock-on effect on smaller airports.

For airports with narrower taxiways and gates, such as Japan, among other global locations, the 787-3 could’ve worked. However, this immediately meant the aircraft became a niche type and would’ve been at risk of not seeing the widespread adoption that may have been expected.

Ultimately, demand for this high-density, short-haul Dreamliner variant was insufficient to justify production, like many other endeavours that plane makers research.

The lack of interest in a 787-3 was compounded by airlines’ desire to use the 787s’ capacity and range for long-haul missions, and these established types gained considerable popularity.

In 2010, Boeing formally dropped the 787-3, refocusing efforts on the 787-8 and 787-9 models while also being committed to strengthening the 787-10’s presence industry-wide.

But Was The 787-3 Worth It?

Many aircraft manufacturers study several options when launching a new aircraft type to find what they consider the best option.

As a result, airline customers ultimately play a significant role in planemakers’ decision-making process regarding releasing specific variants.

While the 787-3 from Boeing can be deemed worthwhile internally, if it receives limited interest from customers, the business case to move towards development reduces.

But, would the 787-3 be a good investment for Boeing now, or will its fate in the mid-2020s be the same as the catalyst for why it was cancelled over a decade and a half ago?

The middle-of-the-market segment from Boeing is an avenue that remains underserved today. While Airbus moved ahead with the game-changing A321XLR, before this, airlines still hoped Boeing would release a competitor.

While the 787-3’s original concept as a high-density, shorter-range aircraft had the potential appeal to airlines operating on crowded domestic and regional routes, limited interest from the offing on a more global scale.

Nowadays, airlines that may have sought something like the 787-3 have gone in the opposite direction, to single-aisle narrowbodies, with Airbus and Boeing, but really the former putting forward jets such as the A321XLR.

Reviving the 787-3 at this time would require Boeing to divert resources from priorities such as finances and production improvements. These are of paramount importance to the business to ensure long-term success.

Considering the investment and certification process that would add to the existing aircraft struggling to get approved, a 787-3 becomes a poor business decision.

Today, Boeing would be better off focusing on another business element. Due to continued studies of the TTBW and other studies, new aircraft are on the horizon.

Still, given the current complexities and technology development, those prospects seem further away. For a 787-3, the time is gone, and if the jet had launched, it would’ve needed to arrive when initially proposed.