Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Without the numbers in front of me, I can not be sure, but it seems the 747-400 is around 30% more expensive per RSM than the 777-200. The 777-300 is the answer for what Delta needs, but those require Cap Ex.
Back when we ran the merger numbers it was obvious which airplanes would go away in which order. The surprise has been that the strength of our network supported them as long as they did.
While NRT is not being talked about much, I'm sure that mess tanked the justification for keeping the 747's on the short term.
It would take digging into the cargo numbers to figure out if the 747 is a keeper. (It would seem Japan needs a Berlin Airlift, but that has not materialized)
In really crazy coincidences which mean nothing, Virgin has a dozen 747-400's. Now that BA/AA is tied up and Virgin's got the "Office of Fair Trading" up their butt, they need friends sooner rather than later.
One of the problems with the supposed cost of the 400, is FPS 2.0. Every flight on the 747 lands with approximately 5,000-10,000 lbs. more fuel than the flight plan allotted. Dispatch has run numerous dual flight plans using FPS 2.0 and Worldflight, side by side. They still can't pinpoint where the problem is. Worldflight is much more accurate for the 400 on fuel planning as well as being much faster and more flexible with route planning. My fear is that the costs on the aircraft are artificially inflated making things look worse than they are.
Also, the 747/777 are top of the heap aircraft. Parking them sucks for all. Poop rolls down hill
Jim