FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
Where is your evidence proving your allegation that Airbus and Boeing list inaccurate specifications for their products.
that's all
777 actually burns less fuel per seat mile than A333, despite posts to the contrary
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
Where is your evidence proving your allegation that Airbus and Boeing list inaccurate specifications for their products.
that's all
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #32
I say nothing about specifications.
quit arguing long enough to take enough time to read what was written about fuel efficiency per seat claims.
quit arguing long enough to take enough time to read what was written about fuel efficiency per seat claims.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
Let's recap.
And here is your reply to FWAA links:
So, are you going to provide any evidence that Boeing and Airbus product specifications are incorrect?
Until then, it remains another of one WT's Fabricated Facts
FWAAA said:
And here is your reply to FWAA links:
WorldTraveler said:
So, are you going to provide any evidence that Boeing and Airbus product specifications are incorrect?
Until then, it remains another of one WT's Fabricated Facts
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #34
to use the words of 700, GROW UP.
and mine
Read what was written and quit arguing for the sake of arguing or to denigrate someone else.
read the facts.
the 333 is a lighter plane with lower thrust engines.
to state that it burns more fuel on a 4000 mile TATL trip or per seat in comparable configurations without providing data is fabrication.
the data and only the data, please.
and mine
Read what was written and quit arguing for the sake of arguing or to denigrate someone else.
read the facts.
the 333 is a lighter plane with lower thrust engines.
to state that it burns more fuel on a 4000 mile TATL trip or per seat in comparable configurations without providing data is fabrication.
the data and only the data, please.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
Please, if you want to maintain an intelligent business discussion, I strongly urge you to harness all of your mental horsepower and do try to grasp at least 1 single shred of evidence that supports your accusation that Airbus and Boeing provide inaccurate specifications for their products (A330 and B777).
Until you do so, everything you post on the topic remains another one of WT Fabricated Facts.
Until you do so, everything you post on the topic remains another one of WT Fabricated Facts.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #36
where's the data to support the claim in the thread title?
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
See post #1.
Read post #1.
Once you grasp the information there, perhaps we can then have an intelligent business discussion.
Read post #1.
Once you grasp the information there, perhaps we can then have an intelligent business discussion.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #38
when we have the data that supports the claim made in the thread title, we can have an intelligent conversation.
silverbird007
Senior
I doubt it matters if the 777 burns more or less fuel than the A330, at the end of the day the AA fleet AVG fuel cost per seat mile is the most efficient of the legacy carriers or will be very soon. Plus with all the new planes coming every week, its going to improve even more. Not to mention the lower maintenance cost.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #40
AA's fuel cost might well be the lowest but fuel cost is only part of the equation. Given that fuel is far less than it was for years and new technology costs money, other factors including the cost of borrowing money are an even larger part of the equation than before.
If fuel cost were the only factor, then WN would have ditched its older aircraft a long time ago. It is clear that the cost of finance including the amount of a debt on the balance sheet are significant factors; DL and WN have far healthier balance sheets than AA and UA and their market capitalization reflects that reality.
and given that DL has the lowest maintenance cost per ASM of all of the large jet operators, it is not even true that new aircraft translate into lower maintenance costs because the maintenance holiday for new aircraft lasts for only a relatively small portion of an aircraft's life.
The 772ER is a more costly aircraft for AA to use on its TATL network than just about any other aircraft that competitors are using; given that AA is deploying it in many markets where other carriers are stronger, AA's cost disadvantage will erode its profitability even while allowing AA's new 787s to improve profitability to Asia.
AA still has to figure out where to deploy its 777s which are optimized for long haul routes, not the Atlantic and where the 777s size is a disadvantage for AA in the winter when fares and loads to Europe drop considerably.
The 772 is a costly aircraft to operate on the 4000-5000 mile flights that are typical on the Atlantic and to Latin America and the economics of the 772 will become even worse as other airlines continue to place their own new technology aircraft including new versions of the similarly sized and configured 330 into service.
AA's decision to pull 777s from the Pacific and place them across the Atlantic is a short-term move to try to buy time until they eventually have to write them off and retire them en masse as 787s, 350s, and 773ERs arrive.
If fuel cost were the only factor, then WN would have ditched its older aircraft a long time ago. It is clear that the cost of finance including the amount of a debt on the balance sheet are significant factors; DL and WN have far healthier balance sheets than AA and UA and their market capitalization reflects that reality.
and given that DL has the lowest maintenance cost per ASM of all of the large jet operators, it is not even true that new aircraft translate into lower maintenance costs because the maintenance holiday for new aircraft lasts for only a relatively small portion of an aircraft's life.
The 772ER is a more costly aircraft for AA to use on its TATL network than just about any other aircraft that competitors are using; given that AA is deploying it in many markets where other carriers are stronger, AA's cost disadvantage will erode its profitability even while allowing AA's new 787s to improve profitability to Asia.
AA still has to figure out where to deploy its 777s which are optimized for long haul routes, not the Atlantic and where the 777s size is a disadvantage for AA in the winter when fares and loads to Europe drop considerably.
The 772 is a costly aircraft to operate on the 4000-5000 mile flights that are typical on the Atlantic and to Latin America and the economics of the 772 will become even worse as other airlines continue to place their own new technology aircraft including new versions of the similarly sized and configured 330 into service.
AA's decision to pull 777s from the Pacific and place them across the Atlantic is a short-term move to try to buy time until they eventually have to write them off and retire them en masse as 787s, 350s, and 773ERs arrive.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
silverbird007 said:
And AA didn't even have to waste hundred of millions of dollars purchase their own refinery.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
Somebody should immediately alert UA, AC, AF, AZ, KL, BA, OS, and let them know to ditch their 772s and replace them with A330s and B767s.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #43
waste? The refinery makes money and reduces DL's fuel costs.
facts are the friends of those who want to talk about the truth.
btw, I am still waiting for evidence that the 772, an aircraft heavier than the 333 and with more powerful engines is more fuel efficient than the 333 in similar configurations.
The 772ER and LR is a good aircraft but it is a heavy aircraft for flights that can be operated by lighter, more fuel efficient aircraft.
and UA like DL has the 764 which has similar fuel economy to the 333, just in a size about 20% smaller.
facts are the friends of those who want to talk about the truth.
btw, I am still waiting for evidence that the 772, an aircraft heavier than the 333 and with more powerful engines is more fuel efficient than the 333 in similar configurations.
The 772ER and LR is a good aircraft but it is a heavy aircraft for flights that can be operated by lighter, more fuel efficient aircraft.
and UA like DL has the 764 which has similar fuel economy to the 333, just in a size about 20% smaller.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
And pray tell, why does UA have 55 777-200ers but only 16 764s?
Sort of defeats your argument that operating 777s across the Atlantic.
But please, do continue to spin away!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #45
glad you asked.
UA had the 763 in its fleet before the merger. The 764s came from CO. The most common aircraft in UA's TATL fleet is the 757, most of which came from CO.
UA operates on average 26 flights/day with its 764 fleet. DL operates 38 flights/day on average with a similarly sized fleet but only 12% of its US-Europe flights are on 767s. 25% are on 777s and 5% are on 744s.
specific to AA, PMAA operates 43% of its flights from the US to Europe on 767s, the same percentage on the two types of 777s and the remainder on 757s. including PMUS, the AA/US TATL operation is the same amount of 767s but now a percentage of 27% followed by 332s with 18%. The 757 operates 17% and the 333 operates 13% of TATL flights.
In contrast, DL's 333s and 764s operate 46% of US-Europe flights and the 763 is 38%.
so the real difference between AA and DL on the TATL in terms of fleet is that DL uses 333s and 764s where AA uses 777s.
For those that accept that a 290 seat 333 is a more efficient aircraft than a similarly configured 777 (and AA and UA's 777s don't even have that many seats), DL has the most fuel efficient US-Europe fleet.
on the Pacific where the range of the 777 is needed, the 777's extra fuel burn is justified and given that AA doesn't have 744s that DL and UA have and AA is aggressively replacing 777s with 787s, AA probably does have the most fuel efficient Pacific fleet.
so, yes, fuel efficiency does matter.
UA had the 763 in its fleet before the merger. The 764s came from CO. The most common aircraft in UA's TATL fleet is the 757, most of which came from CO.
UA operates on average 26 flights/day with its 764 fleet. DL operates 38 flights/day on average with a similarly sized fleet but only 12% of its US-Europe flights are on 767s. 25% are on 777s and 5% are on 744s.
specific to AA, PMAA operates 43% of its flights from the US to Europe on 767s, the same percentage on the two types of 777s and the remainder on 757s. including PMUS, the AA/US TATL operation is the same amount of 767s but now a percentage of 27% followed by 332s with 18%. The 757 operates 17% and the 333 operates 13% of TATL flights.
In contrast, DL's 333s and 764s operate 46% of US-Europe flights and the 763 is 38%.
so the real difference between AA and DL on the TATL in terms of fleet is that DL uses 333s and 764s where AA uses 777s.
For those that accept that a 290 seat 333 is a more efficient aircraft than a similarly configured 777 (and AA and UA's 777s don't even have that many seats), DL has the most fuel efficient US-Europe fleet.
on the Pacific where the range of the 777 is needed, the 777's extra fuel burn is justified and given that AA doesn't have 744s that DL and UA have and AA is aggressively replacing 777s with 787s, AA probably does have the most fuel efficient Pacific fleet.
so, yes, fuel efficiency does matter.
