Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2203724/

Topic: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Lazyshaun
Posted 2005-07-04 14:53:10 and read 4469 times.

Hi, just looking at JAL's website, and saw this press release.

http://www.jal.com/en/press/2005/012002/012002.html

It says how they will change equipment on their Japan to London (Heathrow) route from a daily 744 to 773 from 30/10/05. There are also other route equip. change.

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Carpethead
Posted 2005-07-05 01:15:15 and read 4283 times.

NRT-FRA will go from 744 to 773 that month.
DC-10s will be replaced completely by the end of Fiscal 2005 (March 2006).
JL tweaks their equipment on their routes, particularly Asian routes from NRT, on a daily basis. Expect anything from a 763 to 744 on many of these routes.

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: RJpieces
Posted 2005-07-05 01:20:17 and read 4265 times.

Any idea if JL will switch NRT-JFK to a 773ER like ANA did?

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: N1120A
Posted 2005-07-05 01:28:33 and read 4252 times.

Quoting Lazyshaun (Thread starter):
It says how they will change equipment on their Japan to London (Heathrow) route from a daily 744 to 773 from



Quoting Carpethead (Reply 1):
NRT-FRA will go from 744 to 773 that month.

Wow, their loads must be crap

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 2):
Any idea if JL will switch NRT-JFK to a 773ER like ANA did?

From what I hear, JL has very healthy loads on that route, so I don't see why they would downgrade

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-07-05 02:23:32 and read 4205 times.

Just like ANA, the JAL 773ER has nearly as many premium seats as the 744, just fewer low yield economy. For instance, the LHR 744s have 11F/77J, while the current JAL 773ER has 9F/63J. The 773 they use for LHR might be configured with more J seats (2 more rows would be 77J). That would leave about 150Y instead of 230 or so on the 744 (LHR).

On ANA, the 773 has 8F/77J, while some of the LHR/JFK 744s have 10F/75J.

Further, the 773 is more efficient and carries more cargo by volume. Saying "744 holds more total pax, so 773 is a downgrade" misses the whole point. There is a reason the 773ER is selling and the 744 isn't.

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: N1120A
Posted 2005-07-05 02:34:51 and read 4194 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
Further, the 773 is more efficient and carries more cargo by volume. Saying "744 holds more total pax, so 773 is a downgrade" misses the whole point.

Except that it is. It holds fewer passengers and fewer premium passengers. Beyond that, the 744 is the more efficient aircraft when full, as it is still the lowest CASM aircraft ever in service.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
There is a reason the 773ER is selling and the 744 isn't.

Um, lets see? Perhaps the fact that Boeing has not really tried to sell the 744 for a while is part of it. Or maybe the 773ER's commonality with 4 other aircraft models? It might also have a little something to do with a bloated whale that I saw flying at LBG 2 weeks ago and a soon to come replacement aircraft for the 744. BTW, the 744 sold more airframes and was more profitable for both Boeing and the airlines than the 773ER ever could dream of being

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
just fewer low yield economy.

And fewer high yield economy too

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-07-05 02:52:42 and read 4166 times.

N1120A,

You are just wrong. It's not even debatable. Why are you arguing false points?

I showed that the 773ER as configured by the Japanese carriers holds just as many premium pax on ANA as the 744, and it is likely that the 773s delivered to run LHR on JAL will do the same for them. Yet you claim there is some kind of large cut in premium capacity. There clearly isn't.

As for the "high yield economy" seats, where is your proof? Where is your data that says that with 150Y vs. 230Y seats, JAL or ANA are going to sell most of the 150 seats at a discount and sacrifice the high yield fares? Why on earth would they do that? Why wouldn't they just decrease the number of low yield fare seats available?

CASM is not the whole story. Besides the cargo factor, you have to place a value on all those ASMs, and the way the 773ERs are configured in Japan, they have a higher yield per ASM.

And your commonality argument is also invalid. For a 744 operator like JAL or ANA, buying more 744s would be the ultimate in commonality. So if the 744 made more financial sense to LHR, JAL would have bought more of them rather than buying the 773ER and swapping them out.

Further, your point about the 744 being more profitable over time for Boeing is irrelevant to the argument as well as premature. The 773ER has been EIS for just over a year, and it is the plane everyone is after. It has already booked 108 orders, with the more recent orders being finalized and not officially booked. The 744 is over 15 years old, and it's time has passed. It sold about 450 pax versions in that time (plus 61 M versions), and until the 346 and 773ER, was the only option near that size and range.

Anyway, believe what you want. I personally trust that ANA and JAL know what they are doing and are UPGRADING their service, not downgrading it. After all, what airline purposely makes changes that will lose them money?

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: N1120A
Posted 2005-07-05 03:57:40 and read 4110 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
Yet you claim there is some kind of large cut in premium capacity.

Did I say it was a large cut?? No, I said it was a cut. BTW, ONE F-class seat sold above the 773ER's capacity pays for the fuel difference between the two planes fully loaded.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
773ERs are configured in Japan, they have a higher yield per ASM.

And? JL can sell more seats on the 744 at the same price as on the 773ER.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
For a 744 operator like JAL or ANA, buying more 744s would be the ultimate in commonality.

Not considering than many of their shorter routes require a mix of smaller capacity AND the fact that there are major airports in Japan (most notably, ITM) that don't allow greater than twin-engined aircraft anymore

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
CASM is not the whole story.

Yet it is the biggest chunk of it.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
Why are you arguing false points?

Actually, I am not, but if I was, you would be my best inspiration

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
You are just wrong.

YOU are telling me that?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
It's not even debatable.

Then why bother with that long, grandiose response?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
So if the 744 made more financial sense to LHR, JAL would have bought more of them rather than buying the 773ER and swapping them out.

Like I said, they will reallocate that aircraft elsewhere where its CASM advantage can be taken advantage of

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
It sold about 450 pax versions in that time (plus 61 M versions),

Actually, try 658 total aircraft.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
and until the 346 and 773ER, was the only option near that size and range.

The A346 and 773ER are 80-100 seats smaller than the 744. They are not near the size.

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2005-07-05 04:20:31 and read 4077 times.

I find it interesting that on two of the most slot-restricted airport pairs in the world, JL and NH have downgraded their routes from a 747 to a 777....

doesn't do too much for The WhaleJet sales in Japan...now does it?

If Boeing goes with the 747ADV (most probably) and if either one of the carriers need to expand, they will go with that before they go with The WhaleJet..

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: FlyinTLow
Posted 2005-07-05 04:25:50 and read 4068 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):
Wow, their loads must be crap

Probably the loads aren't the best in Y, but I think the change definitly has more to do with the importance of FRA being a major cargo hub, and them carrying a bunch of stuff in their bellys. But i wouldn't immediatly say their loads are crap.

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2005-07-05 04:44:29 and read 4049 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):

You are making pointless statements.

You CAN'T factor in the 744 Freighter sales without factoring in the 777F sales and other 777 sales, for that matter. You want to compare 773ER to 744 pax version, fine. Otherwise, you are just being argumentative. And since the offering of the 773ER, Boeing has booked 108 orders with more pending for it, and barely sold any 744 pax versions in that time. And many airlines are using those 773ERs now in place of former 744 routes, or expanding their fleet and using those 773ERs where airlines in the past would have used a 747. So obviously they know something you don't about revenue and profit between the two models.

And as I said, but you are too dense to understand, before the 773ER and 346, there WAS NO PLANE NEAR THE SIZE of the 744. I didn't say either plane was as big, or a seat for seat replacement. But they are nearer in size than what came before, which is the whole point. When choosing between a 343 or 772, you may need a 744 even if you don't need 420 seats, because 300 seats is just too few, but with the 346 and the 773ER, you might not need the 744. There are plenty of 744s flying routes that don't need all that capacity because the next step down at the time they bought them was too small. The 773ER fills a gap that the 744 was covering but being used wrong for, and airlines are using it that way.

Again, you are arguing false points. This isn't "debatable" but I can easily point out why you are wrong, as I did. It's not the same thing as debate. And as I said, you can choose not to believe you are wrong. But again, since JAL and ANA both have big 744 fleets, and the 773ER lists for MORE money than the 744 and most definitely selling for more, you'd think if you were right about all you say, airlines, especially JAL and ANA, wouldn't be buying the 773ER, but instead would be buying more 744s for better commonality and higher profits.

But I guess you are right, and they are stupid, and throwing away millions upon millions upon millions of dollars both at purchase time and through operations.

PS - Why am I being so direct toward you? because you personally went through my posts line by line and contradicted them with mostly nonsense or irrelevant information. go bother somebody else.

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: UAL747
Posted 2005-07-05 04:56:19 and read 4030 times.

I was actually getting ready to start a thread today about the 773ER and JL. I'm glad to see they are finally taking them off the Asian routes and starting to use their range and capabilities more. Great to see, though the 744's will be missed.

UAL

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: N1120A
Posted 2005-07-05 05:09:47 and read 4017 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
without factoring in the 777F sales

What? All 20 of them?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
other 777 sales

If so, we can easily take a look at the TWICE as many 747s built

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
You are making pointless statements.

Again, if I am, I am inspired by the best

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
Again, you are arguing false points.

Only in your view where Ikramerica is always right, which is not often the case.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
Why am I being so direct toward you?

I don't really care

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
because you personally went through my posts line by line and contradicted them with mostly nonsense or irrelevant information.

Um, everything I said was relevant and accurate.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
go bother somebody else.

Hmm, you post at a rate even higher than I do, so perhaps you should take your own advice

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
before the 773ER and 346, there WAS NO PLANE NEAR THE SIZE of the 744.

Strange, I seem to remember a plane damn near the EXACT SAME size.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
300 seats is just too few, but with the 346 and the 773ER,

And, for all intents and purposes, they are both 280-300 seat aircraft

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
There are plenty of 744s flying routes that don't need all that capacity

Name them

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
The 773ER fills a gap that the 744 was covering but being used wrong for

Goes to my question of whether the loads were down

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
This isn't "debatable" but I can easily point out why you are wrong, as I did.

No you didn't. You stated pure opinion and have not provided a single scientific number to back yourself up. I have

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
It's not the same thing as debate.

You don't know what debate is, because this is it

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
especially JAL and ANA, wouldn't be buying the 773ER, but instead would be buying more 744s for better commonality and higher profits.

Again, they already operate 2 (JL) and 3 (NH) different 777 types. Adding the 773ER is a positive commonality move.

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Carpethead
Posted 2005-07-05 05:31:29 and read 3994 times.

JL and NH are telling the ultra-low yield group fares to take a hike, while they maintain the premium, high-end econ pax, and cargo carrying capability. All the while burning less fuel and less airport fees due to lower gross-weights and less noise. Sounds like a healthy economic plan.
Many people on this board think that just carrying as many pax is the economic plan. It's really not. Yields must be balanced. Which makes more fiscal sense: carrying 100 pax that paid $100 each or 50 pax which paid $1000 each on a 100-seat aircraft? Sure load factor (LF) is 100% on the former while the latter has a LF of only 50%. But which made more money.

While in essence, a 744 to 777 is a downgrade in pax capacity and gross-weights, but one must look behind the scenes to say was it really a downgrade? Not really for the business person where the 777 can be outfitted with the most modern IFE. For the low-yield group fares, the seat numbers will be rather limited, so instead of direct-flight, one must now fly say via PVG/ICN for the lower fare.

Lastly by the way, 744s for NH or JL aren't going anywhere, well maybe except for cargo conversions. The first 744s to go to the scrap heap will be the 744Ds but that still a few years away.

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: N1120A
Posted 2005-07-05 15:21:30 and read 3816 times.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 13):
Not really for the business person where the 777 can be outfitted with the most modern IFE.

So can the 744

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Jupiter2
Posted 2005-07-06 00:43:45 and read 3608 times.

Guys, while yes the JL401/402 is being "down graded" from the 744 to the 773, isn't the other flight being increased to a daily flight with the 772 (I was originally lead to believe both flights would be 773's). So overall there will be little if any reduction in available seats, but an increase in freight capacity and frequency options for passengers.
Sounds like a viable plan to me and one I look forward to using next year.

RL

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Carpethead
Posted 2005-07-06 10:33:30 and read 3508 times.

JL has been flying double daily on NRT-LHR for a few years. For a while, the second flight was a combination of 744, 743, MD-11, & 772s but are now standardized on the 772. Therefore, the number of seats on this sector is continually decreasing for JL.

N1120A,
OK. So I maybe wrong but how do you explain carriers such as UA, NH, JL that have less IFE audio/video channels on the 744 than on an 772. I am sure other carriers have differing IFE offering for newer A340/772s vs. older technology 744s.

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: Mrniji
Posted 2005-07-06 10:38:43 and read 3500 times.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 1):
DC-10s will be replaced completely by the end of Fiscal 2005 (March 2006).

Will BG (or NW Big grin ) pick 'em up?

Topic: RE: JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.
Username: N1120A
Posted 2005-07-06 15:10:20 and read 3356 times.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 16):
So I maybe wrong but how do you explain carriers such as UA, NH, JL that have less IFE audio/video channels on the 744 than on an 772.

You explain it with the fact that those carriers had the 744 before they had the 772ER and the IFE systems came installed to a higher level on the newer aircraft. They have not seen fit (or in UA's case, had the money to) install AVOD or other IFE on their 744s. VS has arguably the best IFE in the world with V:Port and they debuted it on their 744s.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 16):
newer A340/772s vs. older technology 744s.

The A340 is only 3 years newer than the 744, the 772 only 7 years.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/