Wass-goin-on Guv ???
 

Guvnor, hope these weren't destined for you:

DELTA AIR LINES

Sold 8 Lockheed 1011s to Air Associates for parts.
The aircraft are :
N712DA (L1011-1)
N716DA (L1011-1)
N724DA (L1011-200)
N725DA (L1011-1)
N752DA (L1011-500)
N783DL (L1011-1)
N787DL (L1011-1)
N789DL (L1011-1)

Nope, those aircraft had their data plates sold to Boeing years ago as part of a trade-in package for the B777s; and were used as parts ships to keep the rest of the fleet operational.

Air Associates paid $1m for the lot in an on-line auction. An absolute bargain - as long as there's someone still operating the type!

(Trinidad) BWIA has started disposing of Tristars.

BWIA West Indies (Port of Spain) has started disposing of the Lockheed L-1011-385-3 TriStar 500s.

N3140D has been returned and it has been put into storage at Marana. This now leaves three (9Y-TGJ, 9Y-TGN and 9Y-THA). http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif



[This message has been edited by lineup (edited 07 July 2001).]

.....into the dessert?


Bet that made a mess. Custard everywhere.

:) :) :) Flinty!!

More likely to be strawberries & cream at this time of year!

Two BWIA aircraft there now, and VERY warm strawberries & cream.....temp there on Tuesday was 122F.

with no data plates can you sell the parts???

Come on then Guv, are you going to respond to the title of the topic?

I remember a time when we couldn't log onto pprune and NOT read something about it.

What's happening???

Saw a L1011 on finals at LHR Tuesday PM around 1840 ish on my way back from London- with a blue tail- any ideas on the operator? BWIA go into there early am....

Oh do come on GUV

You never struck me as being a shy wallflower, why have you not responded to my last request?? I am sure we would all like to know once and for all whether your plans for an airline were real or bulls**t.

FE Hoppy - yes; you just can't get a CofA for the aircraft if the data plate is sold.

Evanelpus - greetings from sunny Atlanta! Sorry about not responding earlier, but I haven't been in AN(M) for a while...

If you'll take a closer look, you'll see mine was the first reply to this topic - I think I answered 160to4DME's question, don't you?

Guvnor

Still not convinced you are for real....but if you are...

The Tristar is a nice aircraft and nostalgia has it's place....but.

Why start an airline with an aircraft where flight deck crew costs, fuel costs and maintenance costs are fifty per cent greater than the 767 or A 300/310.

Those fifty per cents add up to a very very large amount of money. Witness the fact that all the major airlines and most of the minor airlines consider it past it's sell by date and uneconomical to operate.

I also think it's maybe a bit big for testing the market on a relatively small catchment area.

With the best will in the world, I don't think I would invest under those conditions or leave a secure job to fly them.

I do wish you success (if you are real) and I hope it works. Me? I'd fork out for the increased leasing costs of a twin jet and make a profit. (or a smaller loss)

Ballyheck: if you want a rundown of L1011 economics vs more 'modern' aircraft, check out the following figures from the US DOT:
http://www.celticairways.com/L1011econ.html

As you can see, the longbody L1011 250 is streets ahead of everything else!

This is due to:

1) Much lower capital costs: you can buy every L1011 in existence for the cost of a single B777!

2) The argument about 2 vs 3 flight deck crews is an interesting one... with an FE, you can fly much longer without additional crew members (which gets very expensive in the case of 2 crew ops).

3) Maintenance costs are lower for the L1011: manhour requirements are higher and parts are a lot cheaper. 'Modern' aircraft require lower manhours spent on them (within the first few years of life); that goes up steeply thereafter and the parts are very, very expensive!!

4) Fuel burn: the RB211 524B4Is burn 15 to 20% less than a CF50C2.

5) From the pax point of view, an L1011 offers a much smoother ride; better cabin comfort through the renewal of cabin air every 3 minutes ('modern' aircraft recirculate air for the whole flight); and the cabins are usually pressurised to a lower level.

As for going for twins rather than trijets, the pax prefer to have as many engines as possible and don't forget either that ETOPS certification has to be earned for new carriers.

Finally, as for carriers in small markets: what about the success (at least untill they got into a p!ssing match with Austrian Airlines) of Lauda Air?? :D :D :D

So Guv how come the 767, 777 & A330 seem to be so popular. Can that many airlines be that wrong? :rolleyes:

Gov

To take your points one by one

1) Interesting, but irrelevant.

2) This statement is kind of self defeating. The sectors you are planning are well within two crew range and yes it does get very expensive with three crew whether the additional guy is pilot or an engineer.

3) Not sure how you work that one out. You have an extra engine which means engine maintenance is 50% higher. Also the engines have much less life in them so replacement costs (in the first few years) will be much higher. When the "modern" aircraft are no longer modern they will be on a par with the L1011 today as far as maintenance is concerned.

4) "the RB211 524B4Is burn 15 to 20% less than a CF50C2" Maybe so but you have three engines burning 80% still comes to 240% compared to two engines burning 200%.

5) Have to say that I totally disagree with this one. Smoother ride...If your in turbulence, your in turbulence. If you are not then the ride on any big jet is smooth.

Cabin air quality, I refer you to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/index.html. Another urban myth crashes and burns.

Your point about ETOPS clearance being earned is a fair one although I think it is an engineering hurdle rather than an operational one. The operational requirements are not too onerous JAR-OPS 1.246. The engineering approval is a bit trickier but is you use a organisation which holds approval then this shouldn't be a problem.

Lauda Air have never operated L1011s. They do operate 767-300ERs. Source... [URL=http://www.laudaair.com/e/ueberuns/geschichte/index.asp.]http://www.laudaair.com/e/ueberuns/geschichte/index.asp.[/ URL]

Now finally I had a look at you web site for L1011 economics. I don't know too much about most of your figures so I will give you the benefit of the doubt except for navigation charges (greater for almost every other type than the L1011) I was under the impression that the charges were based on MTOW.

And the nail in the coffin.

Your fuel figures as far as I can deduce are based on a fuel price of 20c per litre. The best price I can find on the net (after an addmitedly cursory browse) is 67c per litre.

This puts your DOC for the 2000 mile trip up to $145000. For a 767-300ER it is $128000.

DOC per seat, $152 and $128 respectively.

I await with bated breath.

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: Bally Heck ]

Does that mean you don't want to invest Bally?

Great stuff boys - this is the thread that makes this board the best show in town :p

....then again I do only come from a very small town... :D

Desk Driver--
The MAIN reason large profitable airlines in the USA purchase new aircraft is that, under US tax rules and regulations, the depreciation period for new aircraft is over twice as long as used types.
Bean counters, as we all should know, have a very large say in the operation.
For small start-up carriers, pre-owned types make much more sense due to much lower capital cost.