Delta jetliner rolls off taxiway during test

[BoeingBoy]

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.

Aside from the A320 family making a bigger hole in the air (more drag), the equivalent Airbus also weighs more than the 737 and that is the bigger penalty. It also applies to the larger versions of an aircraft family - there is a very small drag penalty from stretching an airplane (the wetted area drag increases) but weight is the big penalty. Using the 767ER family as an example and using MTOW instead of BOW which varies from carrier to carrier and even between tail numbers, the 200ER has a MTOW of 395K lbs, the 300ER is 412K lbs, and the 400ER is 450K lbs. A good rule of thumb is that extra fuel burn is equal to 5% of the extra weight per hour. So a 300ER would burn ~850 lb more fuel/hr than a 200ER and a 400ER would burn ~1750 lb/hr more than a 300ER. If the market will support a 400ER, the fuel burn penalty doesn't matter but if the market will only support a 200ER it's a waste of fuel to put a 300ER in that market.

As I've said a number of times (and neither you nor I discovered it), a bigger version of a family a very small DOC CASM advantage but that means nothing unless there are butts in enough of the extra seats to offset the extra segment cost. And that's the Whole Truth...

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

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.

Boeing doesn't even use the NG suffix - they differentiate from previous versions with the 600/700/800/900 suffix. They do talk about the "Next Generation" family of the 737, but don't tack "NG" on the end of the model to designate a plane as a Next Generation model. Hence most people shorten it to the 737NG to separate the Next Generation family from the Classic (300/400/500) family. I can only assume that the OAG uses "73G" to avoid confusion due to only using 3-digit aircraft type identifiers - when talking about the 737-700 it would be the 737 in normal 3-digit format - the same as the basic airplane type designation. But as far as Boeing is concerned there is no plane called the 73G, or a family of planes called the 737NG.

Wonder how the OAG will differentiate between the neo 320 family, the sharklet-equipped 320 family and the standard 320 family? 32n or 32s doesn't differentiate between the 320 and 321...

Jim

 

[WorldTraveler]

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.

why should it be banished? The code came into being precisely because a 3 digit code was needed that distinguished the 737-700 from the rest of the 737 familiy.
.
OAG codes exist based on passenger cabins... the 73G has a different sized cabin than other Boeing models. There does not need to be a separate code based on what is on the wings if the passenger cabin is unchanged.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The code came into being precisely because a 3 digit code was needed that distinguished the 737-700 from the rest of the 737 familiy.

Which means it's an OAG abbreviation (needing to reduce the aircraft type to a 3 digit code), not an official designation.

BTW, the 737-300 and 737-700 have the same fuselage and configured the same have the same number of seats. Are they both 73G's in the OAG - after all "OAG codes exist based on passenger cabins..."

OAG uses it to distinguish the 737-700 because OAG only uses 3 digit codes, otherwise the 737-700 would be shown as 737 using conventional shortening to 3 digits - confusing since 737 also refers to a family of planes from the 737-100 to the 737-900ER. Nowhere on Boeing's site will you find a reference to a 73G and they have a ton of technical information about every type they manufacture.

Jim

 

[eolesen]

I thought that flying lots of widebodies was the answer. Or was that last week?...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I thought that flying lots of widebodies was the answer. Or was that last week?...

short answer, no.
long answer is that the discussion then was about int'l flights where DL and UA are realizing that the significantly decreased revenue production potential cannot offset the relatively lower costs when compared to a 763.

 

[topDawg]

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.

Oh sweat goodness WT....Maybe before you post you should look at a timetable or something.
ATL-SXM,UIO,TGU
JFK-BOG
What hubs can replace them? Oh maybe they can go back to the 57 and burn money. TGU and UIO were two key cities for the 73W, not MAO....no clue where you pulled that one from.

How about ATL-SNA? Should that be cut? Yes lets start cutting capacity from Delta's most profitable hub. Come on WT....your post are getting really...really....sloppy.

and BTW, the bird is already fixed. The 37-7s will be in the fleet for a long, long time. Boy it is going to be funny if the 717 thing comes true. I'll make sure to come back and bring up this amazing post.
Forgot to add, the bulk of the 739s will be smaller than the aircraft they are replacing, 757 will hold ~20 more PAX and the 763s are far bigger. The only thing they will be replacing that the 739 is larger than is the hand full of close to cycle limit 320s.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Those are all routes that require high performance aircraft but the 737-700 is not the only aircraft that could fly those routes.... I'm not going to say what aircraft could fly those routes and which could not but the notion that those routes would be dropped if DL didn't have the 73G (one of the many accepted codes for that version) is just not valid.
.
MAO was indeed operated exclusively by the 73W (if you prefer)... I don't think any other city of the other cities you mention have never seen another type of DL aircraft.
.
ATL-SNA has seen 757s and a number of other aircraft and the 37-7 is actually the smallest aircraft that has been used - so it is already a capacity cut. Remember that DL tried JFK-SNA for a very few short months - probably a uniquely 37-7 route. The 737-700 was simply a lower capacity aircraft that could operate the flight from ATL.... at 2000 miles, are you so certain the 319 - which is just about the same size - couldn't operate alot of those flights including from SNA?
.
If there is any truth to the rumor that the 717s will move from WN to DL, I would strongly bet the 737-700s will be part of the deal and end up going to WN.
.
The 737-700 is just not unique enough nor are there enough routes which justify having a higher CASM aircraft to keep the type around if there are alternatives to dispose of it.
Remember that DL ordered the 737-700s BEFORE the NW merger and when it had designs on more growth in Latin America... given that DL has added very little new routes from ATL to Latin America, it would appear that DL believes ATL is probably as built out as it can be and any further growth needs to come through an acquisition or growth at another hub. Even so, ATL is the 2nd largest US carrier Latin America gateway as measured in ASMs behind MIA... which is pretty remarkable given that ATL is nowhere near as large of a "Latin city" as MIA, IAH, or even NYC. If DL ever builds or acquires a hub elsewhere - perhaps closer to alot of these cities - then other aircraft might work.
And remember that as fuel costs rise, the economics of smaller aircraft are not as favorable for DL as they are for carriers like AA and UA which have Latin hubs closer to those cities and can use larger aircraft... in other words, it wouldn't surprise me if DL is finding that its ability to serve some of those cities is dependent on being able to use lower CASM aircraft.
.
Glad to hear the formerly damaged aircraft has been put back together again....

 

[topDawg]

Those are all routes that require high performance aircraft but the 737-700 is not the only aircraft that could fly those routes.... I'm not going to say what aircraft could fly those routes and which could not but the notion that those routes would be dropped if DL didn't have the 73G (one of the many accepted codes for that version) is just not valid.All the routes listed could only be done by the much larger 757. Also forgot Key West, which can only be done be the pocket rocket and CR7.
.
MAO was indeed operated exclusively by the 73W (if you prefer)... I don't think any other city of the other cities you mention have never seen another type of DL aircraft. As i said, the beast that is the 757 can do them, though TGU has always been 73W so can't say for sure on that one, but when UIO was 57 it was a tag because it couldn't be done alone on the 57. It was a key route for the order of the 73W
.
ATL-SNA has seen 757s and a number of other aircraft and the 37-7 is actually the smallest aircraft that has been used - so it is already a capacity cut. Remember that DL tried JFK-SNA for a very few short months - probably a uniquely 37-7 route. The 737-700 was simply a lower capacity aircraft that could operate the flight from ATL.... at 2000 miles, are you so certain the 319 - which is just about the same size - couldn't operate alot of those flights including from SNA?
.*sigh* what other aircraft has it seen that didn't leave PAX behind? hint starts with a z ends with a ero. Also yes, the 319 has lower MTOW and the older CFM56-5A4, so only 22K of thrust vs the CFM-56-7B26s (26K)of the 73Ws. The 5A only goes to 23K, unlikel the upgraded 5Bs. (which go to 30K+ but I think 28K is the top out for 319s.) Aka the 319s is not nearly the pocket rocket the 73Ws are. Also the 73Ws were ordered with all the ETOPS equipment, something the 319s don't have.
If there is any truth to the rumor that the 717s will move from WN to DL, I would strongly bet the 737-700s will be part of the deal and end up going to WN.
.i would be willing to bet 100-500 bucks they wont. strong enough? Anyways, WN wouldn't want the over powered 73Ws from Delta....and Delta doesn't want to get ride of an aircraft they ordered less than 5 years ago. (and FWIW you do get that the bulk(all?) of the fleet came under Anderson, along with two 800s, and he could have moved them then if he wanted them gone as bad as you think) Also, if Delta is getting 717s, smaller than 73Ws you know, wouldn't that kind of blow holes all in your logic?
The 737-700 is just not unique enough nor are there enough routes which justify having a higher CASM aircraft to keep the type around if there are alternatives to dispose of it. which is your problem, your looking form the outside in, and for some reason can't get that its the only aircraft on the low end of the fleet that can fly several routes based on performance. Also a handful of routes, like ATL-SNA, ATL-MEX, can use larger aircraft but can't do some making money. In SNA case it would be adding 100+ seats. (thus drive yields down or giving up slots.... which could also drive down yields.)
Remember that DL ordered the 737-700s BEFORE the NW merger and when it had designs on more growth in Latin America... given that DL has added very little new routes from ATL to Latin America, it would appear that DL believes ATL is probably as built out as it can be and any further growth needs to come through an acquisition or growth at another hub. Even so, ATL is the 2nd largest US carrier Latin America gateway as measured in ASMs behind MIA... which is pretty remarkable given that ATL is nowhere near as large of a "Latin city" as MIA, IAH, or even NYC. If DL ever builds or acquires a hub elsewhere - perhaps closer to alot of these cities - then other aircraft might work. not unless Delta powers up the 738s, or plans on using beasts(757) Even AA uses 27K CFM56s on its 738s just because of a lot of airports to the south. Also cities such as UIO and TGU see 757s on AA to MIA, but would not be able to do some from Atlanta. Even if AA is bought most of ATLs network would remain and thus the need of the 73Ws.
And remember that as fuel costs rise, the economics of smaller aircraft are not as favorable for DL as they are for carriers like AA and UA which have Latin hubs closer to those cities and can use larger aircraft... in other words, it wouldn't surprise me if DL is finding that its ability to serve some of those cities is dependent on being able to use lower CASM aircraft. uh...huh? cities like UIO or TGU will be cut before changed. 57 wont work, 73W makes the cities profitable. But I guess Delta could walk away from money. *shakes head*
.
Glad to hear the formerly damaged aircraft has been put back together again....

WT, I get what yours saying, all things being equal the 700s aren't needed, but all things aren't equal. The pocket rockets are needed for the network, nothing is going to change that. Not AA, not the 319s, not 717s....nothing.
also you keep talking about fuel, I'd be willing to bet that the less powerful and older 319s would start going before the 73Ws. Now you wont see any more 700s show up, but you wont see the 10 go away.

 

[WorldTraveler]

WT, I get what yours saying, all things being equal the 700s aren't needed, but all things aren't equal. The pocket rockets are needed for the network, nothing is going to change that. Not AA, not the 319s, not 717s....nothing.
also you keep talking about fuel, I'd be willing to bet that the less powerful and older 319s would start going before the 73Ws. Now you wont see any more 700s show up, but you wont see the 10 go away.

make no mistake.... I love the "pocket rocket" as much as I do the 757 which is a bit more than "pocket sized".
.
The 319s are generally newer than the 320s so there really aren't a lot of old ones.....even if they are older than the 737-700s.
.
But if DL is able to work a deal to simplify its fleet and still fly the network it has - and potentially do a deal that involves picking up the 717s from WN - the baby 737s will go, no matter how much you or I like them.
.
Factor in Pinnacle's bankruptcy and DL's opportunity to move its efforts to further reduce RJ capacity while moving jobs back to DL employees - for whom DL has more than it needs given the projected size of the airline (thus the early retirement packages), and rearranging the fleet including trading in higher value 737-700s for a bunch of unwanted 319s and you have the potential for a solid proposition.
.
I believe these 737-700s are ETOPS, much higher performance, etc than WN's - who is looking at expanding into international markets - and likely will do so from Texas (home to hubs for DL's network competitors).

 

[topDawg]

make no mistake.... I love the "pocket rocket" as much as I do the 757 which is a bit more than "pocket sized".
.
The 319s are generally newer than the 320s so there really aren't a lot of old ones.....even if they are older than the 737-700s.ugh. 319s are less pwerfull, can't fly as far, and can't become ETOPSed.
.
But if DL is able to work a deal to simplify its fleet and still fly the network it has - and potentially do a deal that involves picking up the 717s from WN - the baby 737s will go, no matter how much you or I like them.which is what you seem to be missing, still. The 737-7 and 737-8(and 900ER) are all pretty much the same plane. Matter of fact most of the time the biggest differences on a 737NG type is the different CFM-56-7Bs. So if they want to simply the fleet I guess they should just give the 800s to WN too.
.
Factor in Pinnacle's bankruptcy and DL's opportunity to move its efforts to further reduce RJ capacity while moving jobs back to DL employees - for whom DL has more than it needs given the projected size of the airline (thus the early retirement packages), and rearranging the fleet including trading in higher value 737-700s for a bunch of unwanted 319s and you have the potential for a solid proposition. unless you need the 737s, which Delta does. That is the thing you are, for some reason, just wanting to understand. Also the PNCL BK means next to nothing. The CRJ-200s are all Delta airplanes, leased to PNCL, so they can't just dump them during BK. The 16 ATL based, PNCL owned, CR9s will be pulled from the DCI network but Delta will find replacements for them (they have 36 options for both the E75 and CR9). It means much more for United than Delta. All it really means is Delta will likely move into a money losing outsourcing contract. Not anything new for this company though.
.
I believe these 737-700s are ETOPS, much higher performance, etc than WN's - who is looking at expanding into international markets - and likely will do so from Texas (home to hubs for DL's network competitors).No FIS at HOU, no space at Love....yeah don't hold your breath. Also WN has made it clear their ETOPS plane will be the 800.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I have not doubted that the 737-700s are more capable, probably longer lasting, and perhaps cheaper to operate than the 319s. With respect to capabilities, I still haven't seen anything that says DL needs the 73W/G/-7's capabilities to fly its current network. The only route which I am certain could not be flown with an existing non-757 narrowbody in DL's fleet is ATL-MAO and DL has not chosen to operate that flight - apparently they are considering further expansion "deeper" into Brazil. But the notion that DL MUST HAVE the 73W/G/etc hasn't been established.
.
Truth be know, DL would probably like to get rid of some of the 319s - not because IT is a bad plane but because there is a smaller market for 120-130 seat aircraft and the 319 is the heaviest aircraft in that size class - and burns the most fuel.
But so far as I know there is no alternative to reduce the 319 fleet.
.
There is the potential to trade a small sub-fleet of high performance 737-700s to WN for a much larger number of older, lighter, but more fuel-efficient that also have alot of commonality w/ other existing DL models - whereas the 717s have very little commonality with the 737s WN already operates and have indicated want to keep as their single aircraft family.
.
The acquisition costs of the 717s would likely be far lower than any other 120 seat aircraft which makes their potential acquisition favorable, just as it did with the M90. Note that DL has not taken delivery of any significant number of narrowbodies for several years (except for the 737-700s) but is buying used M90s which like the rest of the DC9 family are long-lived animals.
.
The real benefit of the 717 is that it is a lower CASM aircraft than the CRJs, and even though the Pinnacle aircraft are DL's, DL does and very may well rework their entire DCI network to reduce the number of CRJs being operated overall in a move that is not only good for DL's finances but also for keeping and creating jobs for DL employees. DL has the depth in its domestic network to reduce alot of CRJ routes and upgrade them to flights on a 120 seater, but they need an aircraft that has the right economics - and a big part of that equation is acquisition costs.
.
I can tell you for a fact that DL has been wrestling with how to optimize the use of the 737-700s... and I don't think they have come to a good answer.
.
If the solution is to swap them for a significant part of the price of a bunch of 717s, then I don't think they will hesitate to do so.

 

[topDawg]

I have not doubted that the 737-700s are more capable, probably longer lasting, and perhaps cheaper to operate than the 319s. With respect to capabilities, I still haven't seen anything that says DL needs the 73W/G/-7's capabilities to fly its current network. The only route which I am certain could not be flown with an existing non-757 narrowbody in DL's fleet is ATL-MAO and DL has not chosen to operate that flight - apparently they are considering further expansion "deeper" into Brazil. But the notion that DL MUST HAVE the 73W/G/etc hasn't been established.some times you make me want to beat my head against a wall. ATL-UIO/TGU and Key west can't be done with anything other than the 700s, and Key west can't handle the 57s. If you don't want to believe that, then fine. Be wrong all your life,I don't care. But every time you say this I'm going to say your wrong.
.
Truth be know, DL would probably like to get rid of some of the 319s - not because IT is a bad plane but because there is a smaller market for 120-130 seat aircraft and the 319 is the heaviest aircraft in that size class - and burns the most fuel.
But so far as I know there is no alternative to reduce the 319 fleet.Parking some like NWA did......
.
There is the potential to trade a small sub-fleet of high performance 737-700s to WN for a much larger number of older, lighter, but more fuel-efficient that also have alot of commonality w/ other existing DL models - whereas the 717s have very little commonality with the 737s WN already operates and have indicated want to keep as their single aircraft family.sigh, and cut 3 citys from the network, JFK-BOG would lose money, ATL-SNA would have to much capacity. Goooooood plan.
.
The acquisition costs of the 717s would likely be far lower than any other 120 seat aircraft which makes their potential acquisition favorable, just as it did with the M90. Note that DL has not taken delivery of any significant number of narrowbodies for several years (except for the 737-700s) but is buying used M90s which like the rest of the DC9 family are long-lived animals.right, they took the planes you say they want to dump.....your making my head hurt dude.
.
The real benefit of the 717 is that it is a lower CASM aircraft than the CRJs, and even though the Pinnacle aircraft are DL's, DL does and very may well rework their entire DCI network to reduce the number of CRJs being operated overall in a move that is not only good for DL's finances but also for keeping and creating jobs for DL employees. DL has the depth in its domestic network to reduce alot of CRJ routes and upgrade them to flights on a 120 seater, but they need an aircraft that has the right economics - and a big part of that equation is acquisition costs.
.
I can tell you for a fact that DL has been wrestling with how to optimize the use of the 737-700s... and I don't think they have come to a good answer.
.why don't you prove that.....because, from someone on the inside I'm telling you your wrong. not kinda right, not close, not 50/50 but dead on hit the center target wrong.
If the solution is to swap them for a significant part of the price of a bunch of 717s, then I don't think they will hesitate to do so.

 

[WorldTraveler]

sorry if your head is swimming but let's cut straight to the point.
You are fixated on one airplane type.
DL is not.
They use assets to accomplish what they need to do to make money.
If those assets can be better used elsewhere, DL will move the assets around.
.
DL or other carriers have served all of the cities you mentioned with aircraft other than the 737-700. If they get rid of the aircraft, they will make the decision how else to serve the route.
.
let's also be clear I have never said that DL WILL get rid of the 737-700. I have said they COULD.
.
And DL is no more likely to park viable A319s than they will get rid of the 737-700s at a loss.
.
Disconnect your affinity with the 737-700 with the fact that DL is a business and acquires and disposes of material assets in ways to obtain the best financial results.

 

[topDawg]

sorry if your head is swimming but let's cut straight to the point.
You are fixated on one airplane type.
DL is not.
They use assets to accomplish what they need to do to make money.
If those assets can be better used elsewhere, DL will move the assets around.
.
DL or other carriers have served all of the cities you mentioned with aircraft other than the 737-700. If they get rid of the aircraft, they will make the decision how else to serve the route.
.
let's also be clear I have never said that DL WILL get rid of the 737-700. I have said they COULD.
.
And DL is no more likely to park viable A319s than they will get rid of the 737-700s at a loss.
.
Disconnect your affinity with the 737-700 with the fact that DL is a business and acquires and disposes of material assets in ways to obtain the best financial results.

ugh. so because I'm right, Its that i live the 737? Dude I would much rather see 57s take over for every single scarebus, 37s, M80, M90, CRJ, etc. Hell I'd rather see the L10s come back and fly the routes.....what your not getting, for some reason, is Delta needs the T/O performance of the 700s. You keep saying Delta can replace them, with WHAT? The 319 CAN"T do it. The 57 is to big....so what is going to do it?

and yes, Delta is more likely to park 319s, an airplane they have said doesn't really work great and want more seats packed into it, than 700s....which they have said nothing but positive things. Its a niche aircraft, it does its job very well.

Oh and what other carrier flies ATL-SNA/EYW/UIO/TGU? And what aircraft are they, or did they, use? Has AA flown DFW-SNA with an 738 or M83? sure....you know that Dallas is a good bit closer to the west coast then Atlanta yes?

WT my advice to use is get a good map, airport info and aircraft info and do a little math and such. Quit comparing apples to oranges....MIA-TGU is not ATL-TGU. DFW-SNA is not ATL-SNA. MCO-EYW is not ATL-EYW.