CaptainMiles

Reports are surfacing from reputable sources like the Wall Street Journal and Reuters that DL is looking to scale back orders of 787s and add to orders of 777-200LRs. Sounds like yet another reason to look seriously into switching to CO.

luvsbucks

Why? The LR is a fine aircraft.

CaptainMiles

The LR is a fine aircraft by today's standards. But the 787 will set the bar higher, and will be a fine aircraft by tomorrow's standards. At that point the 777 will be the prior generation, kinda like the way most of us look at DL's 767s today.

A big factor is environmental responsibility. If Boeing delivers on its promise, and there is no reason to believe they won't, the 787 will burn about 20% less fuel on a per passenger basis than the current generation of aircraft.

tomh009

On the flip side, the 787 is already 18 months late, and there is no guarantee the schedules will hold from here on out.

The 777-200LR is also a substantially larger aircraft than the 787-8, and that may fit better into DL's strategy (pure conjecture here, though).

fly747first

Or kinda like many of us look at NW's pitiful 744s today...

pbarnette

If by "fine aircraft by tomorrow's standards", you mean 9-abreast in Y (I doubt a single carrier will go with the once-hyped 8-abreast cabin in Y) in a narrower cabin than a 777, then absolutely. If by "fine aircraft by tomorrow's standards", you mean a J cabin that will almost certainly be, at best, little different from the suites DL is installing on their 777s, then again you are correct.

Aside from the relatively lesser benefits of less fuel burn, bigger windows, and higher humidity, I don't think the 787 will deliver much benefit to the passenger. Perhaps some of the route possibilities it might open up are attractive to the average flier, but I certainly don't think it will be a game changer in terms of passenger comfort.

DanTravels

The "current generation" airplane that the 787 burns 20% less fuel per passenger than is presumably a 767 or 330, both of which, like the 787, are significantly smaller than a 777, and have to split operating costs across fewer people. I'm not sure how the RASM/CASM of a 777 compares to that of a 787, but performance-wise, a 772LR can schlep more people as far as, or further than, a 787.

tomh009

At full range:

787-8:

• 33,500 gallons
• 7,600 Nm range
• 250 passengers (2-cabin)
• 56.7 passenger-Nm/gallon

777-200LR:

• 53,400 gallons
• 7,500 Nm range
• 400 passengers (2-cabin)
• 56.2 passenger-Nm/gallon

Not much of a difference in fuel burn per passenger ...

humanoid94

DL opeartes the 777-200LR with 276 seats in a two class configuration.

sxf24

Why?

Because DL would likely receive 77Ls at favorably terms to give up some of NW's early 787 delivery slots. Also, there are really only a handful on existing DL/NW routes where the 787's range is needed.

DL can replace 747s with 777s and extend the lives of the 767s by taking a play from the NW handbook and completing an extensive refurbishment (plus adding winglets).

tomh009

Checking on seatguru.com, it looks like 298. Nevertheless, different from the Boeing specs.

However, my calculations were just rough back-of-the-enevelope stuff based on Boeing's published specs. Actual numbers (for both passenger capacity and fuel burn) will indeed vary based on both aircrafts' configurations, but the point is that the fuel burn per passenger mile probably isn't radically different.

In fact, to quote Boeing:

jhayes_1780

+1 for this. Also, by my rough count NW/DL will have almost 20 different (a319, a320, a330, 744, 752, 753, etc) styles of mainline aircraft between the merged companies. The need a different model like they need a hole in the head (more parts, more training, etc.). That is one lesson I think UA learned pretty well: Fleet comonality.

3Cforme

This doesn't bode well for prospects of new thin routes DTW/MSP TPAC or TATL. Rather it looks like a plan to support ATL as an uber-hub, with use for the 772LRs likely from JFK as well.

Wild idea: It's laying the groundwork to serve a dozen Asia/Australia destinations from LAX!

BobH

Except when you multiply it by number of miles per flight and number of flights over the life of the plane and take into account the future cost of fuel.

Assuming you can fill up the planes and all other costs are the same.

Bob H

orlandodlplat

Seriously? You're saying you're going to switch carriers because of THIS?

1. The reports indicate DL wants to convert SOME 787 orders, not all.

2. The 787 delays could significantly hinder the type of network growth DL is hoping to attain.

3. The 772 burns fuel, I would imagine, much more efficiently than the 744.

4. The 772 is a wonderful and reliable airplane, passengers generally like it, and the LR has performed very well for DL.