Originally Posted by
EWR764
Using publicly-available Boeing performance planning figures, a derated 777-200ER with 300 seats will burn roughly 65,000 pounds of fuel on a 2000nmi sector, whereas a 737-900ER with 180 seats will burn somewhere around 28,000 pounds of fuel. Even assuming 737-900ER performance at the low end of the curve (high gross weight, hot/high conditions, no winglets, etc.), and better performance out of the 777, there is still a large gap in fuel efficiency between 2x 739ER and 1x 777 for the purposes of moving 300-350 pax on a ~2000nm sector.
working with your figures, a 739ER lists for $99M, and the cheapest anyone is reputed to have gotten them for was $43M to DL in 2011. The usual prices quoted are $55-60M each. Assuming that, the cost of the airplane would be on the conservative side something like $7M/year. Assuming you fly it every single day, 6000 mn a day (which is very high) the plane costs you $6392/fight. That is $35/passenger for the airplane on that flight.
So what is the fuel difference? In the new Hawaii config, the 777 seats 348 which would be 27.5g of fuel/passenger. (65k/6.8/348). The new "slimmed" high density 739ER on UA seats 179. It would use 23g of fuel/passenger.
That extra 4.5 g of av fuel would cost United (at last months prices) $13.725.
So the trade off is (
and the actual figure I expect is far higher, I am assuming a very high 6000nm of flying in a day for the plane every day and my $7M figure may be low) $35/passenger in expanses for the plane vs. an extra $13.725 in fuel savings.
Not even considering the costs of two crews (really just two extra pilots, the FAs are in relation to number of customers), two gate crews, two landing slots/gate use, etc, the 772 is going to be likely cheaper to fly if its already depreciated.
On the DL point, as I noted above, I don't think that Delta is pulling its OWNED 763 domestic birds, it is simply returning 763s as they come off lease or need D checks. I think that has nothing to do with the operating cost issues we are discussing.
p.s. I might add that this math shows the need to get as many hours of use out of very expensive new planes as possible. It is what has driven UAL to unrealistic scheduled with little down time, and a sub 80% OT percentage. Since the part of DL's fleet which is older and owned need to be used so heavily, more downtime is built in, which is why their OP is usually around 85%
Originally Posted by
LarkSFO
Isn't this like saying 'If you take away the one thing that UA has a strong advantage in (E+, which is not being taken away), then I would not fly UA.'
I mean, it makes sense, but this is the exact reason why (especially as an elite, but even if I had to buy E+) I would fly UA. Everything else is a distant second place and below after E+ / personal space.
At this point everyone has E+ (and the DL version is better than the UAfkaCO version). And VX's version (with 38" of pitch and free food/IFE/drinks) is far better.
The "UA is great, it has E+, doesn't need anything else" drum has been beaten to death.
