sailingfun

Bar, were these numbers adjusted for stage lenght or are they based on Delta's actual route use of each aircraft. If they are not stage length adjusted then it would send the narrow body numbers down and the long haul international numbers up.

forgot to bid

Put acquistion costs in and guess who wins:

Bucking Bar

Sailing,

As reported by Delta. Delta's actual CASM. Reported yearly via form 41 to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, United States Department of Transportation. Same data the consultants and ALPA uses BTW ... .

forgot to bid

a) thank goodness Embraer made their jets comfortable and Bombardier is following suit I assume, and

b) the 737 wouldn't be so bad if it was 2x3 seating or 3x2, either way is fine really.

I like this data too, not aircraft specific though:
http://www.airlinefinancials.com/Air...cial_data.html

gloopy

Agreed. Of course we are in a very much new reality of fuel prices. Here we sit in the midst of the worst economy since the big bang or whatever, and fuel (oil actually, but you get the correlation I'm sure) is happy pushing 90. Every little ray of hope economic report that comes out pushes crude up, even in these economic times. Immagine what a full blown recovery would do. 100-120 will be the new norm" if there is ever a sustainable recovery. Expect higher if we keep printing money, which it appears we will.

That's a perfect segway into the other side of that equation...interest rates. We are pursuing the politically easy (time tested and failed) method of Japanese multi-decade low to no interest rates in the hopes that will magically cause growth. It clearly won't work, but even if it does, the bottom line is we will still have super cheap interest rates. When rates finally do start to go up by any significant ammount, manufacturers will simply get other "stimulus" scams from their misguided patriotic governments to grease the skids with lower purchase prices or better financing terms. Boeing will do it through the bottomless pit of defense spending on a different balance sheet, Airbus will do it through flat out subsidies, and of course Canadair and Embraer will do the same. And China is, well, China. They will do whatever they want to do and laugh at our cries of unfairness. We will threaten a trade war (policy of mutual economic destruction) but we won't have the clout to pull it off and they know it.

The "world courts" will stay busy, of course, as each points the finger at the other and squeals about unfair pricing or credit schemes but little to nothing will be done. What that means to our original pricing paradigm is that fuel is high and will stay there or go higher. Interest rates are low and will stay there. That will put strong pressure on airlines to renew their fleets whenever a 10-15% or more bump in effeciency comes along. At least, as long as the price is right. And it will be.

XHooker

Everything you say here is plausible. Two of the planes left off the list are the 737-900ER and the A-321. Don't know about the A-321, but according to the latest United propaganda, the -900ER has an even lower CASM than a 757-300. That would mean it's already better than the projections for the "NEO" (I don't even know what that stands for) and possibly better than the CS300. I'd like to see where projections for a "NEO" A-321 fall. Long story short, despite the bashing it takes from passengers and pilots, the 737 is a great airframe from an airline's perspective. I doubt a new narrow body airframe is high on the to do list for Boeing.

Too Tall

NEO stands for new engine option, I agree with you on Boeing's plans.

Too Tall

So the question is when will Delta and American become more aggressive with fleet modernization? Seems that the writing is on the wall with the fuel prices. American and Delta seem to have the least efficient narrow bodies with all the Mad Dogs.

forgot to bid

They won't move until there is a better option then cheap MD equipment and super efficient MD90s. Someone mentioned one of the things the DC-9-50 has going for it is not only is it paid for but the engines are dirt cheap which according to them offsets fuel inefficiency especially divided out over its 125 seat frame.

As was said in the crewroom they are after all 115 or 116 MD90s in existence including the Saudi's with the 717-LIKE cockpit.

According to this the $60M 160 pax 738 burns 7611 lbs on a 500nm trip, the also 160 pax but $8-12M and 10-14 year old MD90 burns 7800 lbs and then the 88 comes in at 8600 lbs or about 150 gal more for a total cost of somewhere around $330 more at $2.2/gal. Thus, the question is and seems to already be answered, put the MD80s on the shorter range flights and 737s on the longer and thus do you have enough 737s given your huge fleet of 757s? I think nothing will be done until there is a Boeing replacement, just hope the Boeing replacement is worth the wait.

Source: Similar Aircraft Comparisons Chart

LeeFXDWG

Amen, got about 5000 plus each in both an old 737-300 and AB 320 family........give me an AB every time. Loud, noisy, hot, cold, etc.....Boeing.

Having DHD'd in the back of both too many times....give me an AB as well.

Now the Boeing advocates will chime in.............and tell me I need a moving throttle and yolk to know what my aircraft is doing.

Having flown everything from the F-16 to the U-2 prior to 121 life, you need to learn your aircraft and how it is flown. They all have their strong and weak points.

Yeah, tails fly off A330's and 737's do rudder hard overs.

Give me a stick and a tray table any day over a tube that goes back to the 707.

Frats,
Lee