DAL Widebody RFP....

typhoonpilot said:
Yes, but when you reference the B777 at DAL how much of that takes into account the -200LR?

As much as I like that airplane it really is only meant for unique ultra long haul routes. It is difficult to make money with it, to be honest. The -300ER is completely different in that regard.

A lot of airlines have gone with the -300ER in the last decade. It has replaced a lot of 747-400s and other equipment on international routes.

Not saying that DAL doesn't know what it is doing because they have been quite successful of late. Just that I am not convinced of their long term strategy with small airplanes. Airport and airspace capacity is becoming more and more an issue. When you only get x number of slots into a major international gateway and are serving that with sub 300 seat airplanes then I think there is the potential to leave a lot of money on the table.


TP
Click to expand...

Deja vu, from post #4!
 
Seggy said:
If that is the case then why is the A380 and 747-800 doing horrifically in aircraft orders?
Click to expand...

Could one part of the problem with those planes be the fact that they have four engines?

The 777 has killed off the need for four engine planes across the Atlantic and Pacific.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Could one part of the problem with those planes be the fact that they have four engines?

The 777 has killed off the need for four engine planes across the Atlantic and Pacific.
Click to expand...

They keep changing the desktop picture, rebooting and giving the old Doug Henner "It's MAAAAAAAAGIC" when it's just 70's tech with glass packs.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
Could one part of the problem with those planes be the fact that they have four engines?

The 777 has killed off the need for four engine planes across the Atlantic and Pacific.
Click to expand...

But if we follow @typhoonpilot reasoning that capacity is needed the number of engines wouldn't matter as the airlines would price that into the cost of tickets. Also there is a big difference in the number of passengers a 777-300 carriers vs the A380. About 175 in a 3 class configuration. Finally, look at what British Airways is doing with their 787, flying it from LHR (arguably the most congested airports in the world) to Austin. Look at Delta with PIT-CDG and my place with our European flying with 757s to 'thin' destinations. If capacity at airports/airspace was really an issue we wouldn't see routes like this started. However, these routes are profitable and needed even with all of the alliances and joint ventures.

Also, there are 1,054 orders for the 787 only 775 for the A350. :stir:
 
Trip7 said:
US Airlines have no need for 747/777-300ER type aircraft across the Atlantic because they serve European cities from multiple hubs across the United States. If Delta or any US legacy only had one hub like Emirates the 777X/777-300ER/A380 would make sense.
Click to expand...


Excepting Heathrow, I wasn't speaking so much about the Atlantic as the Pacific. Those routes are much more optimum for the B777-300ER.


TP
 
Cptnchia said:
There's a reason we fly airplanes and do not run airlines. Senior managment has to trust us to know and do our job and we have to trust that they know and do their jobs.
Click to expand...


All in the spirit of thought provoking conversation. Not like anything we say here is going to change their strategy.



TP
 
Seggy said:
If that is the case then why is the A380 and 747-800 doing horrifically in aircraft orders?
Click to expand...



Both those aircraft burn significantly more fuel to carry only marginally fewer passengers/freight. For Instance the A380 burns 65 tonnes more fuel than a B777-300ER on the DXB-JFK route to carry only about 10 tonnes more payload. It's only because it carriers more first/business class passengers ( 90 versus 50 ) that the extra premium fares cover the cost of the extra fuel burn. Assuming those seats are at least 75% full, that is.

The A380 full of passengers can not carry much, if any, underbelly freight because it gets bulked out with passenger bags. That's one big reason that it does not sell well. Almost everywhere that Emirates operates an A380 has also become an Emirates freighter destination as well, or at the very least the second/third daily flights remain B777s to carry the freight that can't be put on the A380.

The 747-800 does not suffer so much from the lack of underbelly freight capacity, but it still burns a lot more fuel per passenger than a B777-300ER. Great airplane, don't get me wrong, but the economics of it aren't enough to justify that extra cost on most routes. The same reasoning for it is there long term, but when compared to the B777-300ER the safer bet remains the B777.



TP
 
Seggy said:
But if we follow @typhoonpilot reasoning that capacity is needed the number of engines wouldn't matter as the airlines would price that into the cost of tickets. Also there is a big difference in the number of passengers a 777-300 carriers vs the A380. About 175 in a 3 class configuration. Finally, look at what British Airways is doing with their 787, flying it from LHR (arguably the most congested airports in the world) to Austin. Look at Delta with PIT-CDG and my place with our European flying with 757s to 'thin' destinations. If capacity at airports/airspace was really an issue we wouldn't see routes like this started. However, these routes are profitable and needed even with all of the alliances and joint ventures.

Also, there are 1,054 orders for the 787 only 775 for the A350. :stir:
Click to expand...


BA has a lot of slots at LHR. They can afford some smaller markets. You will not find other carriers using their limited LHR slots for smaller markets. Just look at where UAL, AA, and DAL serve from LHR to see what I mean.

The 787 is the perfect airplane for "long/thin" routes. It is allowing airlines to do just what BA is doing. They can profitably serve that route in part because of the very low fuel burn of the B787. UAL has started SFO-Chengdu, ANA is doing NRT-SJC as other examples.



TP
 
LHR-AUS gettin' "upgaged" to a 777 next year. 60 more seats and "15%" more burn per seat.
 
@typhoonpilot fair enough points on the A380/747-800 vs. the 777-300. I don't disagree with your points about the and do see what you are saying about the Delta order.

I just think that there is still a very large opportunity in the future for these long thin routes. With SFO-Chengdu it actually leads to less capacity strains in a place like Beijing as it allows hundreds per day to bypass that hub.
 
amorris311 said:
Wouldn't surprise me a bit! We park right next to them in AUS and it seems to be full of not oversold every single flight.
Click to expand...

When I was on the Austin Airport Advisory Commission they were trying to get that route hard as their market data showed that was the largest international destination from AUS. @Murdoughnut can probably talk about that more and the need for longer thinner routes.
 
Seggy said:
When I was on the Austin Airport Advisory Commission they were trying to get that route hard as their market data showed that was the largest international destination from AUS. @Murdoughnut can probably talk about that more and the need for longer thinner routes.
Click to expand...

What makes a small city like AUS get that kind of service. Phoenix is like the fifth largest city in the country, and we don't have much Atlantic international destinations. If any Pacific destinations. BA has a once daily 744 to LHR, but that's pretty much it. Besides Airways, and their very limited Mexico and Central American destinations.
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
What makes a small city like AUS get that kind of service. Phoenix is like the fifth largest city in the country, and we don't have much Atlantic international destinations. If any Pacific destinations. BA has a once daily 744 to LHR, but that's pretty much it. Besides Airways, and their very limited Mexico and Central American destinations.
Click to expand...

Because even though its small, everything is bigger in texas.

Except the cockpit of the 737.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top