New B717 flying for DL

[WorldTraveler]

again, given that CO uses small RJs on well more than half of their eastern US flights, whatever DL offers in connections using a combination of large RJs and mainline aircraft is a step up - and UA has none to any of DL's hubs east of the Rockies.

again, let me know what other hubs that have two mainline flights from a US legacy carrier in the hub of a competitor that has as much share as UA has at EWR.

but you still miss the point that UA is not adding capacity from its own hub, DL is the dominant carrier to its hubs from EWR, and capacity discipline throughout the industry is what is increasing yields and profits.

the 717 IS a mainline aircraft and DL's percentage of mainline aircraft at EWR is higher than UA despite EWR being UA's hub.

 

[Hope777]

In most cases, ALL airlines are the Dominant Carrier to their respective Hubs.  Take EWR-CLT as well, US operates a mix of Airbus A/C while UA uses ERJ145's down from Boeing A/C. LGA-CLT US uses Airbus A/C while DL has Larger RJ's

 

[WorldTraveler]

which highlights a general rule among network carriers that the carrier with the largest hub on hub to hub routes usually also is the dominant carrier on the route to other carrier hubs.

What makes EWR unique is that CO had pilot restrictions that prevented the company from adding large RJs and the UA pilots have not allowed UA to "make up" for the imbalance of small RJs (ánd I'm not saying they should) so UA has had to spread the relatively few large RJs it has relative to DL over more hubs, esp. since UA has not rationalized its network post merger to the extent DL has.

No one can argue that DL should have the larger percentage of traffic but EWR is a "richer" hub than DTW or MSP so UA should have a higher percentage of the market if they had the right types of aircraft.

But interior hubs also have the ability to connect to more of the US so UA might or might not get a whole lot higher share of connecting traffic if it did add larger aircraft.

there was a day when airlines, including WN and B6 chased a whole lot more low yield traffic than they do now; and the result is that the EWR local market can much more efficiently be carried on UA's nonstops = which do cover most of the major markets in the US - as well as other carrier hubs.

You just are not going to see the amount of capacity in hub to hub markets as there once was.

Finally, DL has invested a significant amount of money developing LGA and JFK where it wants to carry the traffic; there are certainly passengers that will only fly from EWR but DL's focus is at LGA and JFK just as UA has a much smaller position at the NY state airports.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

It is a decent aircraft to fly as a passenger but nothing flashy. For the flights and markets it serves, including markets where there is no or little other mainline service, it is a welcome sight to passengers.

also noteworthy that the 717 is being heavily used to add service to markets that have not seen mainline service by any carrier for years, helping DL sell its global reach to smaller cities. since the 717 has first class service, it also allows DL to offer a first class product to cities where other carriers are still using only 50 seat RJs.

there are a number of markets in the western US that are ripe for upgrades to mainline aircraft including hourly LAX-SFO Shuttle service (which does allow connections on each end unlike the Northeast Shuttle) and the 717 would seem to be the ideal aircraft to do so. The 717 is only 34 seats larger than the 76 seat large RJs - a nice transition up to mainline.
 

 
I'm just a little curious about DLs choice to go with the B717.  I'm not sure if I understand the numbers / economics, perhaps somebody can explain.
 
The 717 will have the same number of business class seats, 12 - if I'm not mistaken - as the large RJs that DL Connection flies (CRJ900 and ERJ170).  Ofcourse the number of economy seats will be greater:  98 on the 717 compared to 64 for the RJs.
 
My questions is then, how many markets are there that need those extra economy class seats? 
 
Also, the 737-700 and the A319, with 124 and 126 total seats respectively, aren't that much bigger aircraft capacityu wise and they also only have 12 business class seats.  I guess I'm kind of confused as to what is the advantage of the B717 compared to either i) not just sticking with the large RJs ii) not going with B737/A319s or iii) if there is really a need for that 110ish seat market, why not order the A318 or B737-600?

 

[FWAAA]

Also, the 737-700 and the A319, with 124 and 126 total seats respectively, aren't that much bigger aircraft capacityu wise and they also only have 12 business class seats.  I guess I'm kind of confused as to what is the advantage of the B717 compared to either i) not just sticking with the large RJs ii) not going with B737/A319s or iii) if there is really a need for that 110ish seat market, why not order the A318 or B737-600?

The big benefits of the 717 are that they're very cheap to acquire and almost as fuel efficient as brand new Boeings or Airbus, as they have much more efficient engines than old DC-9s/MD-80s.    
 
The short stubby Airbus and Boeings (A318 and 736) aren't very efficient, as they're too heavy and wide for the 100-110 passengers compared to the 717.   Neither of them sold very many copies even when fuel was cheaper.   Now, they're completely uneconomical.   
 
I predicted a decade ago that AA would have been much better off had it kept the TWA 717s and ordered another 100-150 or so, and I think I would have been proven correct.   By 2005,  when fuel prices were beginning their upward trajectory,  the 717s could have replaced less efficient MD-80s and could have replaced 50-seaters, which would have saved AA a tremendous amount of money on fuel in the past nine years.   Of course, DL is using the FL 717s to replace the retired DC-9s and to replace some 50-seaters.   Dumping the TWA 717s and not ordering any more of them was a Carty/Arpey blunder.      

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Because DL got them on the cheap. They have a maintenance workforce who has maintained that fuselage for decades. It holds them over until the replacement.

See, I did that in less than 100 words?

Sorry FWAAA. I tried to beat the...well...you know...

 

[WorldTraveler]

The big benefits of the 717 are that they're very cheap to acquire and almost as fuel efficient as brand new Boeings or Airbus, as they have much more efficient engines than old DC-9s/MD-80s.    
 
The short stubby Airbus and Boeings (A318 and 736) aren't very efficient, as they're too heavy and wide for the 100-110 passengers compared to the 717.   Neither of them sold very many copies even when fuel was cheaper.   Now, they're completely uneconomical.   
 
I predicted a decade ago that AA would have been much better off had it kept the TWA 717s and ordered another 100-150 or so, and I think I would have been proven correct.   By 2005,  when fuel prices were beginning their upward trajectory,  the 717s could have replaced less efficient MD-80s and could have replaced 50-seaters, which would have saved AA a tremendous amount of money on fuel in the past nine years.   Of course, DL is using the FL 717s to replace the retired DC-9s and to replace some 50-seaters.   Dumping the TWA 717s and not ordering any more of them was a Carty/Arpey blunder.

wow, I never knew you had that track record.

AA had the F100s but dumped them. Perhaps you can provide a comparative summary of why the F100s were such a flop and why the 717 would have been better.

AA ordered the F100s directly from Fokker, right?

BTW, DL likes the economics of the transcon 757s which AA acquired with the TW merger but didn't want so DL picked up. They do fly to Europe in the summer and a few places in the other at other times of the year but are now the majority of DL's transcon flying. thanks AA.
 

Because DL got them on the cheap. They have a maintenance workforce who has maintained that fuselage for decades. It holds them over until the replacement.

See, I did that in less than 100 words?

Sorry FWAAA. I tried to beat the...well...you know...

who was that maintenance workforce, Q? WN contracted out most of its maintenance on the aircraft as well as the rest of its fleet.

The 717, Frugal, is a good short-medium size aircraft because it wasn't to serve that role from the beginning unlike the 737 and 320 that A and B have tried to be capable of flying from one side of the country to the other.

The McD-Douglas narrowbodies can't do that but they have lighter, smaller wings and a smaller fuselage.

and of course WN didn't want them and was willing to refurbish them to DL standards (replace the worn FL interiors with new DL standard interiors) and do maintenance that brought them up to date to the tune of $100M before delivering to DL where they are on lease for several years and then DL can buy them. Boeing also chipped in on the deal.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The big benefits of the 717 are that they're very cheap to acquire and almost as fuel efficient as brand new Boeings or Airbus, as they have much more efficient engines than old DC-9s/MD-80s.    
 

 
OK, now it makes more sense. I hadn't considered the cheap pricetag of the B717.
So DL's going to be able to use B717s as potential upguage for RJs and replacement aircraft for the aging MDs.
 
 

Because DL got them on the cheap. They have a maintenance workforce who has maintained that fuselage for decades. It holds them over until the replacement.
 

 

who was that maintenance workforce, Q? WN contracted out most of its maintenance on the aircraft as well as the rest of its fleet.

 
I'll let Quagmire correct me if I'm wrong, but I would imagine he was referring to the NWA mechanics that maintained the DC9s?  Even somebody that didn't have a 3-decade*** spanning carreer in the airline industry grasped it ... ... ...
*** 22 years

 

[robbedagain]

I do believe AA along with Piedmont/USAir had ordered the Fokker 100 from Fokker itself

 

[700UW]

Actually it was AA and US, Piedmont did not order any F100s.

 

[WorldTraveler]

OK, now it makes more sense. I hadn't considered the cheap pricetag of the B717.
So DL's going to be able to use B717s as potential upguage for RJs and replacement aircraft for the aging MDs.

further, the 717 is the aircraft that DL has acquired on very favorable terms and which will see service for decades to come if history of the 717 has anything to do with it.

McD-D builds very durable airframes - the same reason why DL went after the M90 as well.

There are no current plans to retire the M80 either. DL's philosophy has always been that the M88 flies so many 2 hour or less routes where 30 minutes of the flight involves taxi or out and where the improved fuel burn doesn't matter because taxiing aircraft don't burn lots of fuel anyway.

Further the M80 is heavily used in markets in the eastern US where DL controls the pricing because it is the dominant carrier and thus it has considerable ability to raise fares to cover costs if necessary.

bottom line is that the M80 doesn't need to be replaced in DL's fleet although if the huge bubble in narrowbody aircraft develops as Richard Anderson predicts, then the economics may turn favorable to replace the M88s.

the M90 and 717 are both as fuel efficient as anything currently flying and will still be cheaper overall to operate compared to the new engine narrowbodies because of the very low ownership costs of the 717 and M90s.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

AA had the F100s but dumped them. Perhaps you can provide a comparative summary of why the F100s were such a flop and why the 717 would have been better.

BTW, DL likes the economics of the transcon 757s which AA acquired with the TW merger but didn't want so DL picked up. They do fly to Europe in the summer and a few places in the other at other times of the year but are now the majority of DL's transcon flying. thanks AA.
 

 
I believe the reason to dump the F100s at that time was fleet simplification?  Plus the manufacturer went out of business.
 
Weren't the TW757s dumped because of different engines compared to nAAtive 757s?
 

There are no current plans to retire the M80 either. DL's philosophy has always been that the M88 flies so many 2 hour or less routes where 30 minutes of the flight involves taxi or out and where the improved fuel burn doesn't matter because taxiing aircraft don't burn lots of fuel anyway.
 

 
So you forsee DL flying these aircraft for total  ~30 years?

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, AA said the reason for getting rid of the TW 757s was commonality but DL did overhaul maintenance on the engines so knew the aircraft and knew they would be a good fit for DL, which pre-merger did not have any "heavy" 757s.

on the flip side, AA/TAESL does overhaul on DL's 777ER engines.

given that the DC9s were in service for 30 years or more and the M80s are headed for that time frame, it isn't a stretch to think the 717s and M90s could do the same, given that both fleets are about halfway there and even the new generation of engines (320neo, 737max etc) has a smaller fuel burn advantage over current generation engines (320 current, 737NG) than current generation engines have over what powers the M80 and DC9 (early Pratts)

the advantage of the 717s, M90s, and M88s is their low ownership costs which still bring total operating costs lower than new generation aircraft... as long as DL can continue to show that higher fuel burn is offset by lower total costs, they will keep their strategy because it reduces fuel burn.

on the other hand, on int'l aircraft which are in the air longer, having fuel burn competitive aircraft seems to matter a lot more to DL.

it's worth noting that the most recent statistics show that DL's burn burn compared ot other airlines is not above average, likely because DL is using older aircraft like the M80 where their fuel disadvantage doesn't matter much - on short routes where McD D aircraft also shine because of their fuselage design.

if DL maintains what has been a fuel cost advantage relative to other carriers, then competitive fuel burn with lower fuel costs will mean an advantage in the domestic market where DL has historically been able to grow relative to its competitors much better than they have done in DL key markets.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

on the other hand, on int'l aircraft which are in the air longer, having fuel burn competitive aircraft seems to matter a lot more to DL.

 
This is an interesting observation.  Any comments on how DL will be able to remain competitive when their competitors (domestic and foreign) are ordering (and operating) newer, more fuel efficient aircraft such as the B787s and A350s?  Wasn't it now a mistake to cancel the NW order for the 787s?

 

[WorldTraveler]

good question.


and thank you for engaging in a civil discussion. I know there are people on here who are capable of doing it and I will always seek out and engage those who show the maturity you are.

DL obviously believes it can get comparable or better TOTAL fleet costs by using lower cost but less fuel efficient aircraft.

The 787 and 350 are expensive new aircraft because they represent new technology. It is no different than what happens with consumer products when they first are introduced.... after a couple years, prices fall dramatically.

DL is simply saying that it will not be an early buyer of new technology first to let someone else deal with the headache of getting the bugs worked out - which is what happened to UA, JL, and NH with the 787 - but also because prices will fall.

the 333 is THE most cost efficient aircraft widebody in the sky today on a per seat basis. Problem is it is a 12 hour aircraft. the new 333s for DL will be 13 hour aircraft or so.

DL is heavily pushing for the 330neo because it will have operating costs that are as good as the 787 and 350 but at much lower prices because Airbus has already built 1000 330s and have very few development costs to pay.

There will be airlines that will need airplanes with more range than the 330neo - and the 332neo could be a 14 hour airplane - covering much of the world nonstop.

DL will buy a larger, longer range aircraft than the 332neo if it is built. I am betting they will go with 787-9s or 773ERs - but a lot fewer than AA or UA are buying because DL doesn't believe it is necessary to buy as many new technology airplanes with their high prices when older technology but cheaper airplanes can do the job.

and as much as some people want to talk about what DL is doing with the refinery, they specifically said they could spend about as much to buy the refinery as they could to buy the fuel efficiency involved in 60 new technology narrowbodies....

add in further expansion of the refinery and their use of lower cost domestic crude, and DL could very well justify a lot more lower cost but less efficient aircraft because the refinery is producing jet fuel at a cheaper cost than what competitors can buy jet fuel for.