DL expands SEA further with SEA-SFO flights
- Thread starter WorldTraveler
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler said:
It's fascinating the statistics that WT uses to attempt to make the point that DL is superior over all. In one thread, it is local boardings. In another it is the growth rates. In yeat another thread it is % passenger share from said market to DL hubs or the average fare between point A - point B in some other thread. Even the MTOW of aircraft was used to attempt to show DL brilliance. If one dares to use any statistics/numbers where DL is not #1, then WT becomes unhinged
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #618
Kev3188 said:
I'll hold the door for you.
buh buh
can I send a few folks with you?
FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
show me where I ever said that passenger boardings is a relevant measure of anything other than airport charges.
the RIGHT statistics for the right use is what matters.
As for MTOW, I truly hope that you recognize that the lowest weight aircraft that can do the job is the most cost-effective way to serve the market.
Do you routinely commute to work in an 18 wheeler when a Corolla will do the trick?
737823 said:
did you miss the part that AS is adding extra frequent flyer incentives on DL's competitors routes in nonstop SEA-int'l markets?
Suppose DL's REACTION is related to AS' ACTION?
AS decided they weren't interested in providing the seats that DL built the agreement around.
Now, they have to deal with a competitor that wants to build its own hub in AS' back yard... and let's not forget that DL's annual PROFIT is more than half the size of AS' entire annual revenues.
Mixing up weight and fuel economy? An Indy car is lighter than a corolla, is that what one should use to commute?WorldTraveler said:
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #620
given that aircraft have basically the same fuel economy per weight (the new generation carbon fiber aircraft might be the exception), there is a correlation between weight of the aircraft and fuel efficiency
There is a correlation, but they don't have 'basically' the same fuel burn. Stick to what you think you know, and leave the rest alone. You should know that, you suggest it to anyone who disagrees with your narrative.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #622
fine then... give me the fuel burn for a 4000 mile flight on a 777 vs the same route on a 764 or an A333.
I can absolutely assure that there isn't an airline that will burn the same fuel with the lighter twins vs the 777 and yet the DOT statistics show that there are comparable payloads on comparable routes served by both aircraft.
As for one of the most vivid examples, DL carries as much payload per flight on its ATL-GRU flight as AA carries on MIA-GRU using 777s vs. DL's 764s. And the 767s burn up to 25% less fuel.
But I welcome a real world example backed up by data that shows where a heavier aircraft actually results in enough extra revenue to offset the higher costs.
it is specifically DL's ability to use lighter aircraft to serve large portions of the Pacific rim from SEA that improves the economics of the hub.
I can absolutely assure that there isn't an airline that will burn the same fuel with the lighter twins vs the 777 and yet the DOT statistics show that there are comparable payloads on comparable routes served by both aircraft.
As for one of the most vivid examples, DL carries as much payload per flight on its ATL-GRU flight as AA carries on MIA-GRU using 777s vs. DL's 764s. And the 767s burn up to 25% less fuel.
But I welcome a real world example backed up by data that shows where a heavier aircraft actually results in enough extra revenue to offset the higher costs.
it is specifically DL's ability to use lighter aircraft to serve large portions of the Pacific rim from SEA that improves the economics of the hub.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #624
good... then it should be no problem figuring out that the fuel burn on a 777 per seat is considerably higher than on a 767... and currently DL's 764s carry as many passengers as AA's 777s.
of course over a decade after CO and DL introduced the 764, a light finally went off at Centrepork that they weren't getting the revenue per flight on the 777 that other carriers were getting on lighter aircraft such as the 764 so the seat count on the 777 is going up.
My question, again, is not the performance charts but actual market level data to show where a heavier aircraft actually generates enough revenue to offset the higher costs on routes that both could perform.
of course over a decade after CO and DL introduced the 764, a light finally went off at Centrepork that they weren't getting the revenue per flight on the 777 that other carriers were getting on lighter aircraft such as the 764 so the seat count on the 777 is going up.
My question, again, is not the performance charts but actual market level data to show where a heavier aircraft actually generates enough revenue to offset the higher costs on routes that both could perform.
WT if the 767-400 is so great why has Boeing sold only as all handful to two carriers? Admittedly my upcoming DL 764 flight is wide open in both cabins. I also read DL may reduce C seats and add Y on the 744 (upperdeck). Could the same happen on the 764 with 40 seats?
Josh
Josh
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #626
The 764 was competing with the 332 which is a more versatile aircraft.
yet the 764 easily does 5000 mile routes with ease as CO and DL have shown. The 764's operating costs are much lower than larger, more capable aircraft.
The fact that you found a flight that is open says little about the aircraft and a lot more about how it is deployed. If it is to Europe, it isn't uncommon to have open flights this time of year.
As for the supposed 744 refurb, it is about MOVING BE seats out of the upper deck and to the main deck and putting other seats in the upper deck. The BE seat that DL chose for the 777/744 does not efficiently use the space on the 744 upper deck.
Don't know if DL will reduce the 764's BE cabin but it is partly determined by the doors on that aircraft. The 764 is a very premium heavy aircraft but it also has very low overall trip costs relative to other 250 seat aircraft.
yet the 764 easily does 5000 mile routes with ease as CO and DL have shown. The 764's operating costs are much lower than larger, more capable aircraft.
The fact that you found a flight that is open says little about the aircraft and a lot more about how it is deployed. If it is to Europe, it isn't uncommon to have open flights this time of year.
As for the supposed 744 refurb, it is about MOVING BE seats out of the upper deck and to the main deck and putting other seats in the upper deck. The BE seat that DL chose for the 777/744 does not efficiently use the space on the 744 upper deck.
Don't know if DL will reduce the 764's BE cabin but it is partly determined by the doors on that aircraft. The 764 is a very premium heavy aircraft but it also has very low overall trip costs relative to other 250 seat aircraft.
WT the 744/330 seat is different than the 777 and 767 seats. All told DL has three different lie flat products-soon four. I know DL changed the configurations this fall reducing BE seats which must mean they aren't selling enough to make that configuration viable.
As for the 744 upper deck that's very unfortunate my best DL flight was on the 744 upper deck in BE-simply fantastic.
BOS-LHR goes back to 764, and every time I take the flight it's wide open in both cabins.
Josh
As for the 744 upper deck that's very unfortunate my best DL flight was on the 744 upper deck in BE-simply fantastic.
BOS-LHR goes back to 764, and every time I take the flight it's wide open in both cabins.
Josh
robbedagain
Veteran
josh what time of day does the 764 go to LHR? Id imagine though BA does a better load compared to DL but i believe timing has a roll in it too
Robbed:robbedagain said:
DL 186 19:30 BOS 06:35+1 LHR
DL 187 09:30 LHR 13:15 BOS
BA has three (seasonally four) flights on 777/744 and DL has JBV with VS daily A333.
Josh
- Status
Similar threads
