Originally Posted by
sailingfun
I had a different take then what you heard. My take was that the 777-200 was not a good fit. The 300 has much better numbers. Even given that the 200 has better numbers then the 747. I personally heard from as good a source as you can find at Delta that they were struggling with the cost side of the 747 and it required very high yield markets to make a profit. Hence the recent decision on TLV. The CEO of British airways stated his biggest mistake was not getting every 777-300 he could and parking the 747's faster. The 330-300 gets very limited when you push it past 12 hours. There are a lot of current city pairs it would either be load limited most of the time or unable to do. The 242 ton version is a effort to make it more viable in that window but how is that going so fAr for airbus? Hint, we won't be seeing the first two airframes in Jan and Feb of 15 as first planned.
Maybe. But 2 quotes I have heard are "The 777 doesn't know where it wants to go" and "the 777 needs help". Take it fwiw. Regardless, I still think it foolish to hang our top end payrates on the only airplane that matches the payrates of the one that will go away at a time in the not too distant future. But that's just me (apparently) And regardless of what the British Airways CEO says, DAL ain't gonna pay up for an airplane that "needs help". His view of the world is just a bit different than ours too, which makes a huge difference. Maybe the additional EC seats are what's needed. Maybe BA will offer up a discount. Maybe The Browns will win the Super Bowl next year or the Cubs will win the World Series...