Continental first US airline to order Boeing 7E7
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continental first US airline to order Boeing 7E7
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...r_041229g.html
10 Boeing 7E7-8's starting in 2009.
8 Boeing 757-300s lease starting in 2005
6 Boeing 737-800s to be delivered in 2006 instead of 2008.
10 Boeing 7E7-8's starting in 2009.
8 Boeing 757-300s lease starting in 2005
6 Boeing 737-800s to be delivered in 2006 instead of 2008.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Che Xindamail
The Case for the Sonic cruiser died with Sept 11.
Prior to Sept 11 pattern bargaining was pushing up flight crew costs very rapidly. The only way to get the cost per mile of the flight crew down was to speed up the airplane (At the time fuel was very cheap)
The case for the sonic cruiser was so compelling that American Airlines had committed to the ENTIRE first 3 years of production run for the aircraft. As many airplanes as Beoing could build, AA would take (They had 850 aircraft to replace)
The Economic savings were going to be enourmous. AA figured it would have reduced their head count by almost 30 percent, and those that were left would be flying more miles in less time. (Transcon USA trips could have been done as turns with no layovers, and nothing in the carribean would have ever been a layover again).
In that envirnment the cost savings would have been breattaking, and would have severely crippled the competition.
However, after Sept 11, the airlines were able to get increased productivity out of the crews in the bankruptcy courts and fuel became more of a concern and the focus of the aircarft shifted.
But keep throwing your insults around. Make SURE people think you are ignorant.
Cheers
Wino
The Case for the Sonic cruiser died with Sept 11.
Prior to Sept 11 pattern bargaining was pushing up flight crew costs very rapidly. The only way to get the cost per mile of the flight crew down was to speed up the airplane (At the time fuel was very cheap)
The case for the sonic cruiser was so compelling that American Airlines had committed to the ENTIRE first 3 years of production run for the aircraft. As many airplanes as Beoing could build, AA would take (They had 850 aircraft to replace)
The Economic savings were going to be enourmous. AA figured it would have reduced their head count by almost 30 percent, and those that were left would be flying more miles in less time. (Transcon USA trips could have been done as turns with no layovers, and nothing in the carribean would have ever been a layover again).
In that envirnment the cost savings would have been breattaking, and would have severely crippled the competition.
However, after Sept 11, the airlines were able to get increased productivity out of the crews in the bankruptcy courts and fuel became more of a concern and the focus of the aircarft shifted.
But keep throwing your insults around. Make SURE people think you are ignorant.
Cheers
Wino
Errmmm...
The missing piece in that commentary is (IIRC) American's enthusiasm for the SC was absolutely contingent on Boeing being able to deliver an aircraft that was faster than a conventional jet but had the same seat-mile cost for capital, fuel and maintenance.
Since they don't teach Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Farging-Boo in Aero 101, the deal was a non-starter. By 6/01 (Paris) Boeing knew well that an M=0.85 jet with an equivalent level of technology would be far more fuel efficient than the SC, which was turning out to be monstrously heavy even with all-composite construction.
The missing piece in that commentary is (IIRC) American's enthusiasm for the SC was absolutely contingent on Boeing being able to deliver an aircraft that was faster than a conventional jet but had the same seat-mile cost for capital, fuel and maintenance.
Since they don't teach Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Farging-Boo in Aero 101, the deal was a non-starter. By 6/01 (Paris) Boeing knew well that an M=0.85 jet with an equivalent level of technology would be far more fuel efficient than the SC, which was turning out to be monstrously heavy even with all-composite construction.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low observable.
If you had bothered to read what I wrote.
Seat mile costs INCLUDE the cost of the crew, an airline's largest expense (More than Fuel)
Because of the spectre of 300 dollar per hour pilots and 100 dollar per hour flight attendants with restrictive work rules, going faster was MUCH more beneficial than saving fuel. SO it would have burned around the SAME fuel as a 767 but would have been much cheaper to operate.
The recent cuts at American have reduced pilot compensation by an average of 44 percent, and much farther at United and Delta.
Cheers
Wino
If you had bothered to read what I wrote.
Seat mile costs INCLUDE the cost of the crew, an airline's largest expense (More than Fuel)
Because of the spectre of 300 dollar per hour pilots and 100 dollar per hour flight attendants with restrictive work rules, going faster was MUCH more beneficial than saving fuel. SO it would have burned around the SAME fuel as a 767 but would have been much cheaper to operate.
The recent cuts at American have reduced pilot compensation by an average of 44 percent, and much farther at United and Delta.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Asia
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must say the 7E7 looks pretty good. I like that sleek nose.
Not trying to insult anybody Wino, just joking around. Seriously, is there a good case for the plane, or is this another publicity stunt?
Keep hitting that wine.
Che
Not trying to insult anybody Wino, just joking around. Seriously, is there a good case for the plane, or is this another publicity stunt?
Keep hitting that wine.
Che
Wino,
Should have been more specific.
Every airline that liked the SC made the same basic requirement - no more fuel burn than a conventional jet, and NOT what Boeing claimed they could achieve, which was similar seat-mile burn to the 20-year-old 767.
Moreover, my information is that the goal of 767-300-like SM fuel burn was not achievable, and that Boeing finally realized this by late 2002.
And your point about crew costs is very interesting and valid, and makes the point that fuel doesn't always dominate the way that it used to; but I will stick to my guns and argue that it was plain old aero/structural/propulsion questions and the consequently great weight and fuel burn of the SC that made it unrealistic. It's called letting your mouth outrun your technology.
Should have been more specific.
Every airline that liked the SC made the same basic requirement - no more fuel burn than a conventional jet, and NOT what Boeing claimed they could achieve, which was similar seat-mile burn to the 20-year-old 767.
Moreover, my information is that the goal of 767-300-like SM fuel burn was not achievable, and that Boeing finally realized this by late 2002.
And your point about crew costs is very interesting and valid, and makes the point that fuel doesn't always dominate the way that it used to; but I will stick to my guns and argue that it was plain old aero/structural/propulsion questions and the consequently great weight and fuel burn of the SC that made it unrealistic. It's called letting your mouth outrun your technology.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone any idea where the 757-300s are coming from given that Mr Boeing just shut the production line down? I suppose American Trans Air are the most likely, but can anyone confirm?
