Всё
← Back to Squawk list
Delta Issues a Major Widebody RFP For 747/767 Replacements
Delta Air Lines plans to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for new longhaul aircraft that will replace all of the airline’s Boeing 747-400s and a significant part of the 767-300ER fleets. (www.aviationweek.com) Ещё...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Well now John, don't be too hard on the boy; the article did say they were looking at the 787. LOL
The good news is they are considering the C-Series instead of 737's or Emb
After they see it in the marketplace. I personally hope the 787 wins out here. The only reason they are in the fleet is a result of the NWA merger and the only reason NWA bought them was because they were cheap. As you can tell, I'm not an AB fan and as the writer says, Boeing made a mistake for not putting out a 767/757 replacement. By not doing so, they opened a niche for AB and they will do their best to fill it.
The 787 is the same exact size as the 767 and so is the perfect 767 replacement.
It will be interesting to see where the price falls out at.
Anderson's comments as reporter suggest there is a market that the 787-3 would've been able to meet.
But then Boeing discontinued that variant because they didn't get enough orders to merit the development if that particular variant, that would've been geared to shorter range missions.
Maybe they can take another look at that in a few years when there's sufficient 787 production capacity to handle adding yet another variant.
Also, if there is a 757 replacement being planned, as reported, then a 787-3 would be completely unecessary.
But then Boeing discontinued that variant because they didn't get enough orders to merit the development if that particular variant, that would've been geared to shorter range missions.
Maybe they can take another look at that in a few years when there's sufficient 787 production capacity to handle adding yet another variant.
Also, if there is a 757 replacement being planned, as reported, then a 787-3 would be completely unecessary.
This is true but the 757 replacement is just in the talking/planning stages and was rumored to be single aisle. DAL is looking for wide body and a 75X would be way too big to get in that CS100 range for the little stuff they are talking.
Whether or not it would fit this particular RFP for one airline (Delta), the possibility of the introduction of a 757 replacement would make the smaller 787-3 less important.
Further, a modernized 757 replacement would meet the future marketplace needs, for which the 787 was oversized or over range.
In part this is a response to Anderson's statement that it is uneconomic to operate aircraft shorter than the range or which they are designed. The statement sounds like a swing at Boeing for designing their widebody aircraft for long ranges as needed by the ME carriers. It becomes the rationale to try to push the A330 as the choice.
But in the future, an efficient modern 757 replacement would provide a solution for those mid-range routes. Possibly for Delta, bit certainly for other customers.
Further, a modernized 757 replacement would meet the future marketplace needs, for which the 787 was oversized or over range.
In part this is a response to Anderson's statement that it is uneconomic to operate aircraft shorter than the range or which they are designed. The statement sounds like a swing at Boeing for designing their widebody aircraft for long ranges as needed by the ME carriers. It becomes the rationale to try to push the A330 as the choice.
But in the future, an efficient modern 757 replacement would provide a solution for those mid-range routes. Possibly for Delta, bit certainly for other customers.
I really can't understand his rationale on extra expense for not flying the range. I flew a 752 for years and best I remember, it had around a 4 grand range with the RR engines. Before I retired, I specced a 762-ER with the same RR engines(upgraded) and it was to have a range of about 6400, more with less than MTOW. It was bought due to the extra interior room. The only thing I can think of on the range thing is extra dry weight to carry that much fuel; I personally think that is negligible as most of the airframes are similar. Other than maybe re-engine and upgraded avionics, I don't know what they could do to the 757 to improve it. It drove like a race car and was a high steppin' lady when on the ground. It had the best looks of anything flying.
Yep.
But he's the man in charge who will ultimately make the decision of which plane(s) to buy. So whatever he says is significant, even if he gets it wrong or misrepresents the facts.
But he's the man in charge who will ultimately make the decision of which plane(s) to buy. So whatever he says is significant, even if he gets it wrong or misrepresents the facts.
Of course I'm Boeing partial, but especially on the 767 and there penchant for older airframes, upgrade the engines, upgrade the avionics and interior, and fly 'em. Lots cheaper than a new airplane. How do you think AA has kept the Mad Dogs flying for so long. They sent them to Tulsa where they were stripped to the frame and re-outfitted, but then as you say, he's the man in charge. What do we know?
I'm guessing that he may be referring to the MTOW based landing fees.
Or as you allude to, the lower cost of production of older planes, which translates into lower purchase prices for the airline.
Or as you allude to, the lower cost of production of older planes, which translates into lower purchase prices for the airline.
It becomes a spread sheet of operating cost vs. capital cost along with a few issues in customer comfort (I deliberately chose the 76 for transoceanic flights for comfort). The problem is it is difficult to control for fuel price and the cost of government interference.
As you pick the 767 for comfort, many will be selectively booking the 787 for the jump in cabin comfort it offers.
But currently, I know many who prefer the 33 over the 75 for reasons of comfort when both are available on the same non-stop trans-Atlantic routes. (And, despite being extremely thirty in most purchases, even pay a bit more for the privilege for the perceived comfort of a widebody as well as airline preference).
So Anderson's preference for the lower capital costs of older cheaper planes may backfire, if passengers end up strongly preferring the comfort of newer planes with lower operating cost.)
But currently, I know many who prefer the 33 over the 75 for reasons of comfort when both are available on the same non-stop trans-Atlantic routes. (And, despite being extremely thirty in most purchases, even pay a bit more for the privilege for the perceived comfort of a widebody as well as airline preference).
So Anderson's preference for the lower capital costs of older cheaper planes may backfire, if passengers end up strongly preferring the comfort of newer planes with lower operating cost.)
Personally I think Anderson is negotiating in the press...having taken lessons from Al Baker.
Baker gives good lessons. LOL
Part two would be to assist Southwest get into the international business to Europe and South
America from Atlanta, New York and Orlando. A similar arrangement with Alaska Air on the West Coast.