new service from MIA to MXP

[WorldTraveler]

I am sure very few plan to do that, and even less are proud of it when it does happen.

It is not good practice for an airline that is in the business of flying passengers and cargo to fly empty aircraft. There is not much profit in that practice.

if the plane needed to get from SIN to ATL and DL had no intention of operating it as a revenue flight on any possible leg between the two cities, then it could well make sense to fly it nonstop if the aircraft could do it.
I still think the flight was part of an effort by DL to highlight the capabilities of the 330, esp. if the rumors about DL buying 330s and 321s turn out to be correct.... I haven't seen reports about other ferry flights that have taken place over the past week in the news.

During a time when most refiners are reporting good earning numbers as price gain of petroleum products have outpaced stagnant WTI crude prices, Delta reported loss of $63 million at the Trainer refinery in 4Q, and expects more losses of up to $100 million in 1Q 2013. Delta chalked it up to Sandy, the super storm. However, as Platts reported that in a Dec. 2012 investor call, Delta executives said Trainer plant relies on crudes at about $4/b above Brent (The plant is old and relies on expensive imported crude feedstock mostly from Nigeria.)

[background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/delta-airlines-got-an-oil-refinery-the-math-does-not-work-cm213367#ixzz2V4Mjuwk4[/background]​

And you and others can't seem to grasp the concept that DL didn't buy the refinery to make a profit in the same sense as it would if owned by an oil company. The refinery was purchased to allow DL, the US' largest private purchaser of jet fuel, to control the crack spread on jet fuel; DL has made that point for over a year since the refinery deal was announced about a year ago - but some people still are hung up on trying to measure success of the plant using other metrics.
When it became apparent that the shutting of a number of refineries in the NE would push jet fuel prices up, DL chose to act to increase quantities of jet fuel and thus push down prices - with DL benefitting first but everyone else that flies in that region benefitting to an extent as well.

Even a $60 million loss as part of a jet fuel program that spends $3 billion per quarter is a few pennies caught up in pocket lint.
Accounting regulations require that DL show the profit or loss of the refinery; it doesn't provide a mechanism for showing the reduced price of jet fuel as a result of the change in the crack spread, but that pricing change has very much occurred.

Also, DL is already using crude from N. Dakota which is changing the economics of the refinery. Apparently you missed that little bit of news

The significance of the refinery as FWAAA notes is that the price of jet fuel in the US NE is lower for ALL users, including US-AA than it would have been if DL had not increased the supply of jet fuel in the region.
Lower priced fuel for AA-US makes the possibility of expansion of the PHL hub more likely.

 

[700UW]

I guess you missed the news that DL has to put in another $100 million to get Trainer functioning, and no business buys a business to lose money, if you lose money you end up out of business.

 

[FWAAA]

I guess you missed the news that DL has to put in another $100 million to get Trainer functioning, and no business buys a business to lose money, if you lose money you end up out of business.

If you're talking about the $100 million DL spent to refurbish the refinery in 2012, then that's old news and was known when DL bought the refinery:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/business/delta-air-lines-to-buy-refinery.html?_r=0

The purchase price of the refinery was $180 million, but PA kicked in $30 million, reducing DL's investment to $150 million. As pointed out in early 2012, DL planned to invest $100 million more to refurbish the refinery and increase its percentage of jetA produced. In 2012, the refinery lost $63 million, and then reported a loss of another $22 million in the first quarter of 2013 (much smaller than the $100 million that your linked NASDAQ blog post predicted).

The bizarre part is that DL is the only owner/operator of a refinery on the planet that actually wants the market price of its product to decline; every other refinery owner likes high prices for their distillates (as that's how they make a profit).

I still predict that DL will exit the refinery owership business in the near future, but if DL begins to report average per gallon prices for fuel that are less than AA, UA or US, then the refinery won't look like quite as bad a decision as I said it was last year.

 

[700UW]

No there was an article this week, Anderson said they were going to invest another $100 million into Trainer.

Anderson said the airline is retooling the refinery to handle more jet fuel, so it is investing another $100 million to do so.

He also said jet fuel prices will decline overall in the U.S. because it is adding to the supply. He estimates all airlines will benefit.

Anderson’s strategy is being rewarded by Wall Street. Delta Airlines stock price has risen from $14 to $18 per share.

http://www.messagemedia.co/aitkin/news/state/article_0cbb5628-c7b8-11e2-8f7b-001a4bcf6878.html

 

[FWAAA]

No there was an article this week, Anderson said they were going to invest another $100 million into Trainer.

http://www.messageme...1a4bcf6878.html

No, that editorial from the Aitkin County, Minnesota, newspaper is referring to the initial $100 million that Delta invested in 2012 to refurbish the refinery.

Had Anderson recently announced yet another $100 million investment, then the WSJ, the NYT, the AJC and a thousand other media sources would be talking about it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Indeed, the author pieced together several news items about refineries that have occurred over the past year and put them into a single article in order to fill up a whole page story.
The internet is great - for writers or readers - but you still have to understand the context.

Again, selective reading will result in failing to see this key phrase:
"He also said jet fuel prices will decline overall in the U.S. because it is adding to the supply. He estimates all airlines will benefit."

and the point of the article is about stubbornly high gasoline prices due to refinery outages.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics understands that when supply increases, prices fall while supply reductions result in higher prices, demand remaining constant in both cases.

Prices are high in the Midwest despite good availability of crude but because there is a lack of refining capacity, in this case partly due to short-term outages.

It doesn't take a statistician to perceive that refineries are shutting in the US and leaving the US with no margin to maintain production should anything happen - and given that accidents and unplanned maintenance happen fairly frequently in one refinery in the US or another, supply is reduced and prices rise.

DL is adding to jet fuel supply by reacting a refinery that was shuttered and increasing the percentage of jet fuel that the refinery produces since US refineries are primarily tuned to maximize gasoline production.

DL might decide it is worth getting out of the refinery business but not likely before oil companies recognize that if they don't provide sufficient jet fuel at prices that approximate other refined products, consumers (in this case DL but could be other large users) will find ways on their own to ensure supply remains sufficient.

Again, part of the equation was that DL could buy and overhaul a refinery for about $300M and get the same fuel savings as they would obtain if they bought 60 new aircraft at a cost of several billion dollars.

Those who choose to see the success or failure of the refinery based on a one line item on the income statement will never get the value because there are a number of parts in play.

The article accurately notes that Wall Street has rewarded DL's strategies with a stock price that happens to translate into a market share premium over every other airline in the western hemisphere.

 

[700UW]

Looks like its been done almost 10 years ago: 10,563mi

[size="-1"]Taken from the Airbus website.....
09 Jan 2003
Qantas has made the longest flight ever by an Airbus A330-200 - nonstop from Toulouse, France, to Melbourne, Australia - covering a distance of almost 17,000 km in a flight time of 20 hours and 4 mins.[/size]

[size="-1"]The flight is believed to have set two new records in its class ? a distance without landing of 16,910 km, and the fastest speed between Toulouse and Melbourne of 865 Km/hr. [/size]

[size="-1"]The delivery flight of the brand-new A330-200 was flown by four Qantas pilots, carried 12 people in a fully equipped passenger cabin, and followed normal operating procedures, highlighting the fuel efficiency of Airbus aircraft.
Qantas' A330 left Toulouse on 24th December, landed in Melbourne on Christmas day.[/size]

 

[robbedagain]

what the mileage btwn sin n atl and what is sin airport...

 

[700UW]

Singapore, Delta sends their planes there for interior modifications.

 

[robbedagain]

long haul to send a plane just for interior decorating that in my opin is a lot of wasted fuel when it could be done in house and then the plane can be put back into service without wasting a lot of fuel for a pacific flight flying empty

 

[WorldTraveler]

I’m not sure how a thread that started about AA’s new service MIA-MXP (which hasn’t even been discussed) has become a debate about DL’s maintenance practices but, noting the disconnect from the original thread, I’ll play along.

I’ve never said that DL operated the longest flight with the A330 but that the SIN-ATL flight was one of the longest DL operated and certainly one of the longest with the A330, specifically because I am aware of the QF delivery flight.

But since the QF flight happened years ago, it is not recent news. While the QF flight was longer, DL’s flight was a notable accomplishment for the A330 and one which I still believe was part of a publicity effort which DL and Airbus arranged as part of DL’s negotiations regarding potentially buying more A330s.

Because DL made the commitment to only operate transpacific flights on aircraft with lie flat business class and seats and updated coach cabins (including AVOD at every seat), DL does not currently operate the A330 across the Pacific so this repositioning flight could not have been operated as a revenue flight without swapping out a scheduled Boeing flight somewhere along the route; since there are no scheduled A330 pilot crews in Asia, the only way the aircraft could have been staffed would have been to deadhead pilots or operate the aircraft only as far as the crew could have legally flown in a day and then overnight the aircraft with the crew until they became legal to fly again. And DL still would have had to deadhead the scheduled pilots “over” the segment the A330 operated or ferry the Boeing.

Since DL has done maintenance on its 767 and 744 fleets in Asia for a number of years and operates a fleet of Asian-based 757s which do not regularly cross the Pacific in revenue service and yet DL has operated revenue flights to/from Asia for maintenance visits between the US and Asia involving all of these fleet types, DL understands the concept of minimizing ferry time and maximizing revenue production.
As is typical with so many armchair internet experts – in many subjects – judgment is made based on one piece of information without considering a host of other factors.

The fact is the aircraft was in SIN and needed to be back in ATL and there was no way to get it back as a revenue flight w/o creating a lot of operational disruption including ferrying other aircraft which would have added even more costs.

Given that CO, DL, NW, and UA all have a history of doing heavy maintenance in Asia and AA has now decided to join them on a large scale, the real issue is why have we not discussed – and castigated – those airlines for flying empty planes to/from their maintenance visits? Latin American companies also do maintenance on US carrier aircraft which means there are many aircraft flying for those maintenance visits, yet seemingly without outrage. And why should they get a pass? And let’s not forget that AA regularly ferries/ferried aircraft between TUL and its former maintenance base at FTW (which has no commercial service with AA aircraft) to its other hubs, yet again without outrage.

I don’t expect an aviation chat forum that is heavily populated by labor supporters will ever agree that overseas maintenance is an acceptable norm in the industry, but it does happen and it requires that aircraft be ferried between the US and Asia.

Now, do you suppose we could have just one response that is somehow related to AA’s addition of MIA-MXP or some other AA route, past, present, or hoped for?

 

[robbedagain]

i saw that aa will operate a 767 300 er for the mxp what do they use out of jfk to mxp

 

[john john]

DL took over the PHL-CDG route, and runs it with a 757 on a seasonal basis.

Use it all the time on reroute when Air Wisconsin PSA and PHL ATC start their usual delays

 

[WorldTraveler]

i saw that aa will operate a 767 300 er for the mxp what do they use out of jfk to mxp

thanks for returning to the subject at hand.
AA operates JFK-MXP with a 763.
Other current service between the US and MXP includes
AZ from JFK with a 330
DL from JFK with a 764
DL from ATL with a 763 (operated seasonally or less than daily in off seasons in recent years)
UA from EWR with a 764

What hasn't been mentioned is that Emirates is starting MXP-JFK later this year, although I believe on a less than daily basis. Still, they are using a 777-300ER which seats almost twice as many people as any other airline during the offpeak season.
Add in that the Italian economy is on the ropes along with the rest of southern Europe and AZ is suffering just as much as everyone else if not a whole lot worse, and the increased flights by both AA and EK could push the market over the edge. The question is who will blink but AZ is part-owned by AF who has a joint venture with DL and is already the largest carrier between the US and Italy on its own metal. EK might have picked a market that they see might push AZ over the edge while AA is trying to expand its network and thought it might find a clear place to do so but I see no winners in the US-MXP market for many years.

Use it all the time on reroute when Air Wisconsin PSA and PHL ATC start their usual delays

while they couldn't make the route work based on last minute reroutes, it does show that PIT and a lot of other Midwest cities are capable of supporting a nonstop flight to Europe, even if on a 757 and even if not even daily on a year round basis.
CVG has managed to retain its 767 daily service to CDG also even though the CVG hub has been pulled down significantly; the 767 can be justified because of the aircraft engines which DL carries for GE.

Aside from passngers, AA can probably do very well on cargo between MXP and Latin America via the MIA hub.

 

[robbedagain]

the emirates air i wonder if that is a dubai milan jfk run and return? i did not know a foreign carrier thats not associated with european can do a us eurpe run