Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 1360201)

Gloopy,

As you mentioned, they're keeping the line open for military production, and think they could pretty easily market a 76-3 ERNG. (I'm not an Engineer, so maybe the KC-46a is nowhere near what an "ERNG" would look like.)

Good day,

GJ

Boeing: KC-46A Tanker

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/me...217-images.jpg

Originally Posted by ITSALLGOOD (Post 1360220)

LAX-SEA and return up gauged to 757 and 738 on two of three daily flights for summer. Confirmed on Travelnet.

Originally Posted by Moby Dick (Post 1359861)

Not to change the subject, but on the 744 vs. 777 debate. I have a UAL buddy who says the 777 from Australia has to carry an extra 40K of fuel to meet multi-ETOPS requirements. That's 40K of weight unavailable for cargo.

The 744 has no such restrictions. Just food for thought.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1359732)

I don't know, I have a feeling the backlog is real and the price is high (relative term) and not going down soon. Boeing Says 777 Backlog Damps Sales as Airlines Shun Wait - Bloomberg

And do we even know if we can cut in line for the 77W? I heard one reason SWA acquired AirTran was for 738 slots and the 717 deal also included us sending 738 slots over to SWA. I inquired with the person explaining this as to why SWA with its purchasing power would have to struggle to get 738 slots and it was explained SWA may own 700 slots but that doesn't carry over to the 800. Not sure.

But what about the time value of money? 744s could be here sooner making money sooner that we bank sooner and maybe pay down debt sooner and so on.

Sure the 77W would beat it in cargo but what if cargo doesn't run at full capacity and top dollar 100% of the time? That gives the cheaper 744 acquisition an even larger margin that I bet beats any maintenance cost difference that I still think can be negotiated. I saw Embraer personally do that on a corporate jet, I bet Boeing can do it.

But I see this 744 vs 77W a lot like the MD90 vs 738. We tripped over ourselves to acquire as many 90s as we could because they were 4x cheaper. And that's with both jets seating 160 passengers. The 744 seats even more passengers than the 77W and could be 4x cheaper. Anecdotal evidence that the acquisition price is huge and trumps a lot of things.

The problem I think is getting 744s. If this was such a good deal why didn't we get more 744s before? Probably because getting "late model" ones is hard to do, however, with the 748 sales the way they are I bet Boeing can do deals like it did with SQ to help move customers into the 748 and in doing so they'd love or are desperate for us to help out and buy the trade-in 744s.

Put it all together and look at Carl's post and other headlines like the SQ deal and it looks to me like this could be plausible. And sure the 77W would knock the 744 out in 6 rounds if the subject was only costs and acquisition cost wasn't a factor. But given that these jets are not free and given it's not about cost but revenue, maybe the 744 knocks the 77W out in 5 rounds. And that's with the 77W not showing up til round 3.

Originally Posted by n9810f (Post 1360257)

Not to get too far off but there's plenty of loose talk at SWA of the 739ER.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1360118)

Upcomong displacements and summer flying will pick off most of the remaining survivors.

Originally Posted by flyallnite (Post 1360251)

If these flights put a dent in the Alaska stock price...

Originally Posted by Moby Dick (Post 1360283)

Keep dreaming. What color is the sky in your world?

Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 1360271)

As far as I'm concerned they can have those underpowered, garbage pigs they call airplanes.