Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
JAL To Change Equipment On Some Routes.  
User currently offlineLazyshaun From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 548 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4449 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.


I came. I saw. I conquered
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2946 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4263 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.


User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4245 times:

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

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4232 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



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4185 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.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4174 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



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4146 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?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4090 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.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4057 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..



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineFlyinTLow From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4048 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.



- When dreams take flight, follow them -
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4029 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.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4010 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


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3997 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.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2946 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3974 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.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3796 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



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJupiter2 From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 883 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3588 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


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2946 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3488 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.


User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3480 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?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3336 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.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
When Will Jetblue Change Equipment On JFK-PWM? posted Tue Aug 22 2006 01:47:59 by PWM2TXLHopper
JAL To Slash Another Four Int'l Routes! posted Thu Jan 19 2006 19:45:06 by Ktachiya
Exorbitant Air Fares On Some Routes! Too Much! posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:45:31 by RootsAir
Co To Retain 767's On Some GLA Flights posted Sat Feb 19 2005 19:24:03 by GustyOrange
Egypt Air- Sending Strange Aircraft On Some Routes posted Fri Mar 12 2004 19:29:15 by ToBEYwithMEA
LH To Scrap F Class On Selected Routes posted Thu Aug 1 2002 11:31:37 by SailorOrion
Plane Changes On Some Routes? posted Sat Dec 15 2001 21:18:35 by Aeromexico495
If I Want To Change Seats On The Airplane... posted Mon Dec 10 2001 04:11:30 by Vafi88
Virgin Blue Ramps Up Frequency On Some Routes posted Sat Oct 13 2001 06:49:02 by Aussie_
BA Replaces 777 By 767-300 On Some Routes? posted Thu Oct 4 2001 09:48:32 by Cool777