Bally Heck - the most important point in my last email (the fact that the capital cost of an L1011 is zip) you dismiss as irrelevant!
I'd like to see you do PIK-LAX with one crew (or SFB or FLL) in a 767 or A330 with a single crew ...
The figures, as it says on the site, are US 1998 DOT results, hence the low fuel prices. The current prices we're using for our projections are confidential, but I can say that the average figure for the route structure is under US$1/USG.
And as for the cabin air issue, 50% recycled air is still bad news; and I understand in the case of Airbuses it's 100%?
My point about Lauda Air was in reference to them being a small company operating in a small market, which you brought up. I'm fully aware they have never operated L1011s!!
Finally, the reason I compared the L1011 with the DC10 is that it is its closest peer - the B767s and A330s are considerably more modern.
DrSyn - if you check with dispatch, I suspect you'll find that your L1011-200 has RB211-524B02 engines (though with your fuel figures, it looks more like a -22B burn!). The aircraft we're looking at have RB211-524B4I engines, which have about 10% better overall fuel burn. The figures we're using are provided by DL and are well under 8 tonnes per hour on a sector like LGW-YQX. PIK-YYZ is planned at 7828kg/hr average burn, for example.
Your biggest differential is on the finance costs. Assuming you have a new B767-300, you'll be paying around US$1.2 million per month for it regardless if it flies 1 hour or 350. We, on the other hand, would have an L1011-500 that at worst would cost US$3m capital (including the cost of D Check and cabin refurbishment) - equivalent to approximately $50k/month for a reasonably rapid pay-down. In the event of an economic downturn/recession, you'll appreciate that we can park our aircraft without too much difficulty - but the owner of a new B767-300 is going to find himself in deep financial water in very short order.
Add to that the CAA requirement for three months expenses (assuming nil income) in cash at startup, and you'll see why startups are better off with older, cheaper aircraft.
Sky 9 - The L1011s are cheap because the market generally acts like a herd of sheep. We've seen it with the Convairs; we've seen it with the DC10-40s; and we've seen it with RR powered B767s (and to a lesser extent the RR powered B747s). We also saw it in the early/mid 1980s with the value of B707s - they dropped down to nothing before people realised that they still provided good lift at minimal price. I'm convinced that the same is true of the L1011s - where else can you get 300+ seaters for (relatively) pennies ... and with Stage IV engines as well?
The build quality of the L1011 is immesurably superior to anything produced today, and the design life is such that the aircraft we're looking at will be capable of operating another twenty years before any extension is needed. Properly - and I stress, properly - maintained, they will give trouble free service for a very long time.
Where people have fallen down with the L1011 in the past is largely due to the fact that it
is such a good aircraft. Its system redundancy means that many operators will continue operating the aircraft whilst the primary systems are out - rather than fixing the problem on its return to base, as it was designed for.
Evanelpus - yes. Happy?