Delta jetliner rolls off taxiway during test

[Hatu]

A Delta Airlines jetliner veered off a taxiway during maintenance testing at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport early Tuesday, causing significant damage to the aircraft, an airline spokesman said. No one was injured, he said.

"Mechanics testing the engines of a Boeing 737-700 this morning experienced a problem with the plane’s braking system," Delta spokesman Eric Torbenson said

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/delta-jetliner-rolls-off-taxiway-during-test/?hpt=hp_t2

 

[robbedagain]

oops

 

[AAviator]

I'm glad nobody got hurt. Bad day for those guys, I wish them well

 

[eolesen]

That's a little more than just rolling off a taxiway.... WT, are you writing for the AP these days?

 

[FWAAA]

That's quite an embankment for an airport. Maybe a good place for a guardrail. B)

Didn't ATL construct some taxiways around the ends of runways and excavate the taxiways so that the taxiing airplanes would be below the level of the runways (so the taxiing planes would not be in the way of takeoffs and landings)?

Edit: Taxiway Victor.

 

[WorldTraveler]

oh the risks of doing maintenance in the US rather than in Asia or Central America where such things can be swept under the rug, never to be known about.
.
The AP description is accurate, E. Does it have a blow by blow account of all the damage incurred as a result of rolling off said taxiway? No.
.
I doubt if the damages reach write-off value for the aircraft but I have a feeling that if given a choice, DL would probably like to get rid of this aircraft instead of fix it. The economics of the 73G at network airlines are less and less favorable as fuel prices increase, esp. since the similarly sized 319 can do many of the same missions which DL envisioned when they bought the 737-700s.

 

[eolesen]

Translation:

 

[BoeingBoy]

The economics of the 73G at network airlines are less and less favorable as fuel prices increase, esp. since the similarly sized 319 can do many of the same missions which DL envisioned when they bought the 737-700s.

Yet the 737"G" (is G for gee whiz) is less expensive to operate, all else being equal.

Jim

 

[WorldTraveler]

Yet the 737"G" (is G for gee whiz) is less expensive to operate, all else being equal.

Jim

the issue is that "shrink" versions of aircraft families have trip costs nearly identical to their "stretch" family members, meaning CASM is higher due to similar costs spread over fewer seats. DL bought only a few 73Gs based on their perceived need for a few high-performance aircraft for special missions; now that those missions don't exist (DL has scrapped its intention to re-enter MAO while many of the mountain routes can be done w/ other aircraft and from closer hubs like MSP.
.
Moving to larger body versions of aircraft such as US is doing with the 321 and WN is doing with the 738 vs the 73G and DL is doing with the 739 order is becoming more and more widespread in the industry.

 

[USFlyer]

I am somewhat surprised at the number of A321s US is buying, especially given they are replacing 733s and 734s with lower capacity. Is the cost differential between the A321 and A320/A319 really low enough to support such a switch in aircraft size?

But, to BoeingBoy's point, everything I've read indicates the 737 NGs have slight lower operating costs than the comparable A320 series aircraft.

 

[BoeingBoy]

But, to BoeingBoy's point, everything I've read indicates the 737 NGs have slight lower operating costs than the comparable A320 series aircraft.

That was my point, neatly sidestepped by WT. The equivalent A320 family member has a higher DOC than the NG versions of the 737.

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

While I understand and agree that smaller versions of a plane's family will feature higher costs per seat mile than larger versions, aren't there flights where a 73G or A319 make sense? Like markets where 80 or 90 seaters are too small and flights where 150-180 seats are too many? As an aside, I don't view the 73G as a shrink; the 736 is a shrink; the 738 and 739 are both stretches of the basic 737 design.

For years, the conventional wisdom has been that 50 seaters, despite their higher costs per seat mile, were advantageous because they permitted airlines to attract higher yields and featured lower trip costs than larger jets. Of course, with fuel at $3.30/gal, the economics of 50 seaters no longer makes sense on many routes - larger jets, with 70-90 seats, will have much lower CASM and trip costs not all that much higher than the 50 seaters.

I would think that flying 150-180 seaters where 120 seats would really be optimal would decimate yields. Or are airlines immune from the supply v demand rules applicable to other sellers? Can airlines routinely get an extra 30-60 passengers that are necessary to fill the 738s, 739s and A321s without dragging down the average fare to unprofitable levels?

Is it merely a function of today's fuel prices? Southwest flies more than 360 73Gs and 165 733s (same size as the 73G) and I don't think anyone would say that WN erred when it bought those 137 seaters (525 of them). Will their 175 seat 738s feature lower costs per seat mile? Of course. Will WN be able to consistently fill those 175 seats at profitable fares? Gary Kelly better hope so.

 

[WorldTraveler]

thank you, FWAAA for recognizing this is not an A vs B discussion but one of aircraft size.
Boeing's smaller fuselage makes it easier for them to deliver better fuel efficiency than the narrowbody Airbus... but it misses the point that a longer version of ANY aircraft has a favorable CASM with nearly identical trip costs than its stablemates of different sizes.
.
Yes, airlines need a variety of aircraft sizes to meet various demand profiles. And the 50 seat RJs looked good until the 70 and then the 90 seat versions came out and everyone found out that the same tube could carry almost twice the number of people - with significant improvements in efficiency. The 767-200 looked equally good - unless you now compare it to the 764 which can carry 50% more people in a comparable configuration.
.
And yes the changing prices of fuel make yesterday's economics no longer work.
.
A 130 seat aircraft at 10% higher CASM will not necessarily be successful just because a 160 seat aircraft is too large. If the CASM is too high for a smaller aircraft, then you either need to reduce enough capacity from the market to force yields up to make the 130 seat CASM work or you use the 160 aircraft with its lower CASM (and various size/CASM combinations). B6 has found that the 190 even with its lower costs is not a low enough CASM aircraft to effectively serve many of its routes which are lower RASM routes to begin with.
.
Consolidation in the industry - and there will be another round - will eliminate the number of hubs and the number of flights - and larger aircraft can be used at all carriers as it becomes less and less necessary to have the level of competition that has developed over the past 35 years.
Many people can't remember back to the industry 35 years ago but there were alot fewer flights flown by larger aircraft than their are today - even if those aircraft had far fewer seats per square foot than aircraft have today.
.
My point was and remains that DL has enough 130 seaters in its network, composed of both 319s and 73Gs. I suppose DL could have wished that mechanics were testing the oldest 319 instead of a relatively young 73G but the point remains that DL would be glad to trade that 73G for a larger 738 or 9 and the 319 for an A320 if it could do so.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Oh, no...don't tell me you've succumbed to the 73G disease too...I'd love to see one official reference to that mythical airplane...

Otherwise, you're very correct. Sizing the airplane to the market is more important than the small difference in CASM due to the number of seats on larger models of the same basic family. In addition, range considerations come into play since often the smaller members of an airplane family have longer range.

Jim

 

[FWAAA]

My apologies. I think I first saw the 737-700 referred to as the 73G in the OAG in 1997 or 1998. Consider it banished.

The A319 is heavier than the 737-700, no? All else being equal, the Boeing's trip costs should be lower than the A319.