Originally Posted by
RaflW
We flew in a 763Z HNL-LAX a few days ago. No reason DL couldn't use them for SLC-HNL, ATL-HNL etc, in addition to premium transcons.
A lot will depend on fuel prices. The A339s are claimed to have a 12-14% improvement in fuel burn over the 333s, and those are more fuel efficient per seat than the 767s. Reading about the operating economics of the 339s, they don't really 'pay off' until segments of about 4,000 miles, and the range is up to 7,000, so I can see DL using some 339s on routes that were 777, and moving some ex-NW 333s to replace some of the 58 active 763s.
Since this is a 777 thread, I am actually curious to think about where DL uses 777s that might switch to 339 service in the years ahead. I also noticed on the DL News Hub page that they confirmed the J/W/C+/Y format for 339s. So I would imagine DL will bring C+ back to the 777s and add to the A350s. DL has it's foibles, but they do seem to try for brand consistency (which also brings up what DL would have in mind for 767 D1 -- I guess 1/1/1 'suites'?)
The A339 is more fuel efficient per seat than the A333 which is more fuel efficient per seat than the 763.. but as you noted, this is primarily over longer segments. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if I had to guess the 763s are only about 10% or so less fuel efficient per seat than an A339 at, say, a 4200 mile segment length - which is what most 767s fly (East Coast / Midwest to Western Europe). And the A339 will have about 40% more seats than a 767.. so when that nets out, you're left with a 25-30% capacity-to-cost "hole" that will cause an issue on many routes.