davetravels

Well, every once in a while, these, otherwise dull pages need a little "color" . . . .

. . . . . and sometimes, even a tension breaker!

kettle1

Thanks for the BOLDING of this. My eyes just flipped out. Perhaps I can fly to Canada to get free eye care?

pbarnette

And, yet, there are tons of successful carriers that don't do so. I mean, by this logic, SQ shouldn't have any A380s.

I suspect that the efficiency gains are step-wise. Is operating a fleet of 5 aircraft optimal? Probably not. But is operating a fleet of 50 aircraft significantly more optimal than operating 2 fleets of 25? I suspect that the gains of going from 25 to 50 are much, much more limited.

Orcair

Double Post. Please delete

Orcair

I was just trying to highlight the difference between the quotes and my comments. I apologize for offending you. I will un-bold my comments now.
You are correct - something I hadn't pondered in my haste.

PLeblond

They obviously would not replace the all 767s, but I can see them ordering 25-30 77W/772

Its not just range, the 77W has increased capacity, although I agree JFK-DUB isn't a route for 77W (I thought that route was operated by a 757). In long term planning, Delta needs to add (profitable) capacity to generate revenue/profitability. the 77W is ideal for ATL/JFK/LAX-(CDG/AMS/HKG/NRT/Emerging China markets).

Since they already have 18 788s on order, it could be logical to add 789s, or A333 to bridge the gap. Airlines currently operating 788s have confirmed the cost savings and seem to love the economics (serious teething issues not withstanding). The question will probably be, can Boeing price the older 777s to convince DL to take 789s? Or will Delta stick with their idea of established programs forgoing fuel savings?

readywhenyouare

JFK-DUB utilizes both the 752 and 763ER deepening on the season.

To me the answer is simple. Delta wants capacity discipline. The 787 provides the seating of a 763 and range to take those passengers most anywhere that DL serves. It seems like the obvious choice. A few 77W that can be ordered on the cheap make sense for high density hub-hub flights like ATL/JFK-NRT. Otherwise use the smaller 787's and you can increase the ticket price due to limited seating. I'm baffled why DL ordered more A333's. It's a HUGE airplane. DL has been chanting they are all about capacity discipline. It doesn't make sense. The fewer seats on aircraft the higher the price you can command. The 787 has the seating capacity of a 767 but can take those passengers much further. It just makes sense for the 787 to make up the bulk of a long-haul fleet.

pbarnette

It is a large airplane, yes, but it is pretty flexible in terms of DL's route structure. In one of the previous interviews with RA, he mentioned that they are very cautious about underflying a plane's range and the A333 has pretty ideal range for all of DL's TATL and LATAM network and can be utilized on some TPAC flying, especially ex-SEA. It can be a real workhorse for their fleet.

If I had to guess, I'd think that they may look at something like 10 77Ws for the truly long-range, high capacity stuff and go smaller on the rest of the 747 replacement. If they don't buy 16 direct 747 replacements, the capacity bump from the A333s might end up being relatively neutral.

BER Flyer

Not sure how good you're in airline economics but they measure their costs by CASM. DL does not want "capacity discipline" but CASM discipline. If the A330 has an similiar CASM as a 787 ( and is has as it's cheaper when buying ) then you have an additional 30-50 seats "for free" which you can sell - even cheap. If the trip costs for a certain aircraft & city pair are very similiar you always choose the larger aircraft. Also, DL already has A330 crews, maint. base and tons of spare parts availalbe - nothing for the 787.
If passenger numbers raising in the next years ( and my guess is they will ) we will see DL partner airlines doing the US-EU hub flying including the AF 380 from/to ATL with the larger aircrafts they have. DL's 777 will most likely ending up serving Asia and Australia.

readywhenyouare

Oh good, someone who knows what they are talking about. Explain to me why some airlines ordered huge fleets of both A319 and A320 aircraft. From what I understand the operating costs of both the 319 and 320 are so similar that it is foolish to not use the A320 for its great capacity. To my understanding an aircraft like the A319 is only needed in limited numbers where its performance is needed.

PMDL had the textbook version of this with the 737-800 and 737-700. The -800 was ordered in the greatest number due to its great capacity. The -700 was ordered in limited numbers for airports where its performance was necessary. So why did NWA, UA, and US order so many A319's? This question has been bugging me for the longest time and no one has been able to answer to it.

HongKonger

This may be the way they completely eliminate the NRT hub. DL used to fly a 777 DTW-HKG which is 7857 nm. SEA-SIN is 8070 nm and SEA-MNL only 6K-odd nm.

pbarnette

The only thing I could see saving the NRT hub would be if it becomes a hub for some of the too-far destinations in Asia, such as BKK, SIN, CGK, KUL, etc.

BER Flyer

Easy to answer: exchangeability. The A318/19/20/21 family as well as the B737-4/5/6/7/8/9 series models were disigned to complement each other, not to compete. From the begining on it was clear that the larger network carriers will always operate more then one version of these familys at the same time. As these planes can be exchanged vitually 10 minutes before boarding ( the A321 pilots need an additional 20 hour training on these longer birds apart from that they can fly each of them ) airlines switching them like they operational need them. If you know that your flight from a>b has 101 pax and the return flight has 122 pax why fly an A320 when an smaller, lighter A319 can do the job cheaper? For this reason alone large single aircraft operator like Southwest & Ryanair ( both 100% Boeing fleets ) will always have differenttypes of them in the fleet. Same reason why AF got all 4 A320 types in their fleet.
As for better high & hot performance on the A319: i don't think that plays a major role in the US. The only airlines that i'm aware off operating the A319 with A321 thrust parameters are operating in China (Nepal ) on the very high altitude airports there.

PLeblond

From my (limited) understanding, the A319/A320 can be configured with load and power specs for each artiness specific needs. It appears navigation and handling fees depend on MTOW so assiging lower MTOW on A319s would make them less costly to operate than A320s. Also, from what I have gathered, the most popular configurations of A319s allow for 800nm longer range than an A320 so the A319s can operate longer routes with lower MTOW configuration. That makes A319s more route flexible at a lower operating cost.

davetravels

Back in the NW days (gosh, I'm old! ), I was flying DTW/PVD on an A320 that went double mechanical. After the second A320 went mechanical, they found an A319 for us - - same pilots and cabin crew. I knew they were very similar, but, I was surprised that they were THAT easily interchangeable! I chatted with the pilots about it while they waited for their hotel shuttle. Interesting stuff!