Sounds like Boeing is planning to build some tankers for inflight refueling . . .
But seriously, some airlines have purchased new 763s in recent years (LAN comes to mind).
Delta's MD-90 purchases are certainly very similar to the decision by NW in the 1990s to refurbish its DC-9s, figuring that fuel was cheaper than new airplanes. And it was for the 1990s and the first half of the last decade.
Delta's move is another gamble that fuel prices moderate and don't continue to climb quickly, as the MD-90 is still less fuel efficient than new 738s. My back of the envelope calculations show that the MD-90 is about 21.5% more fuel efficient than AA's MD-80s on a seat-mile basis, but that AA's new 738s are about 19% more fuel efficient than Delta's MD-90s on a seat-mile basis.
In computing these numbers, I used AA's assertion that its new 738s are about 35% more fuel efficient than AA's MD-80s on a seat-mile basis plus some other data I found for MD-90 and MD-80 average fuel burn per hour. At the right price, the MD-90s probably make sense unless jet fuel prices climb ever higher. Oil prices are of course down today on today's Egypt news, but as economies here and abroad recover and grow, my hunch is that oil prices continue to advance.
FWAAA,
Since US airlines report statistics to the US DOT about their operations including detailed cost infromation about each fleet type, there really is no guessing about what it costs to operate specific aircraft in real operations by US carriers... there are differences in some of the allocation of costs between airlines but some data like fuel burn is pretty consistent.
- first, DL's M90s burn less fuel than the 738 and about 20% less than the MD80 per hour. However, DL's M90s don't presently seat as many people as the 738s (although that is changing) and the M90s are used on shfoter flights than the 738 which affects fuel burn. DL uses the M80 on the shortest average domestic flights, with the next longest being the M90, followed by the 320, and then the 738. DL's M90s are used on similar stage lengths as AA uses on its M80s and DL's fuel burn for the are about 25% lower per hour than AA's on the M80. But on a per seat basis, the difference is a bit smaller because the M80s seat less - part of why DL is adding seats to its M80s (as well as 90s) to bring down seat costs.
- The M90 burns LESS fuel per hour than the 738 or the 320.... again, it is used on shorter segments, but it is also lighter - which is related to its lower range. DL's ownership costs on its M90s are ONE-THIRD of what AA/DL spends on 738s so it isn't hard to see why DL is going after the M90 - and total CASM is comparable to AA and DL's total CASM.
As for the 757 vs 739, the 739 burns about 15% less fuel so it would be a decent tradeoff - IF the 757s need to be replaced....
but many people don't understand the cost of money aspect, esp. in new aircraft decisions. Money is not cheap and when airlines like AA require multiple billions of dollars just to replace a single fleet type, the cost of maintaining the status quo is often cheaper than buying new equipment. Since airlines are typicallly heavily leveraged businesses, AA and DL are both rightly focusing alot of attention on getting debt off of the books. For DL, it means upgrading its existing fleet but for AA some of their M80s are of the age that they cannot wait another 10 years to start replacing them, esp. since AA has a much larger MD80 fleet.
I personally think AA's best decision is to put as many MORE seats on the M80 as possible to keep costs down, shift usage esp. on longer flights wherever possible to the 738s which are more fuel efficient, and then buy as few new 738s until Boeing comes up w/ a viable new aircraft/replacement for the 738. DL's announcement that is willing to buy some new narrowbodies is a shot at Boeing that it will look elsewhere if Boeing doesn't come up w/ a better product.... AA could do the same thing if they are willing to buy other existing narrowbodies.
Finally, few people at AA talk about the 762 but that is by far the most expensive aircraft on a CASM basis in the US passenger fleet with costs 50% higher than the 738, 757, and 763 for AA. Maintenance costs are twice as high as on AA's 763s while fuel burn is only about 7% lower. The 757 burns 40% less fuel than the 762. The only real advantage is that the 762s are almost fully depreciated so ownership costs are very low. I understand the premium nature of AA's service on the 762 but average fares do not bear out that AA recovers the increased cost of operating the 762, unless they carry a WHOLE LOT of high value cargo. Further, there are premium seats available for narrowbodies - and UA does get a substantial revenue premium to AA on its JFK-LAX/SFO routes, although on far less volume. A far more economical way for AA to serve the transcons in my mind would be a combination of 752s and 763s in international configuration with the 763s providing the cargo capabilities and the extra passenger capacity in order to maintain AA's market share - which has decline fairly significantly over the past 5 years in the face of strong competition. If AA had not removed the A300s from the fleet, they could work well in transcon service as well.... the A300s always had competitive cost numbers to comparable aircraft (the "accident" effect not counted).
I recognize that the 763s are in need for int'l routes but I would also personally recommend that AA buy 20-25 764s or better yet A333s - because both would handle the vast majority of AA's S. America routes at lower costs than the 777s - and in the case of the 333s be larger than the 772s, freeing up the 772s for longer haul flying where the extra weight of the 772 makes alot LESS sense on flights less than 12 hours which could be done on lighter aircraft that might carry as much (the 333 and 772 have similar floor space and lift capabilities on a 10 hr flight but the 333 weighs 50K pounds less, resulting in less fuel burn and landing fees).
But that is another discussion.....
