Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737-700ER: The Ultimate US-EU Openskies Plane?  
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2825 posts, RR: 42
Posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3788 times:

IagBlog recently went subscriber only, but they had a little blurb I found interesting (Fair use only, go join Blackprogram to get the rest)

Quote:

Ryanair doesn't need a new aircraft, just a new model. The Boeing 737 for which all their pilots are trained is available in an ER version (both 737-700ER and 737-900ER).
The 737-700ER has a of 5510 miles. This will allows Stansted to Islip (3478 miles) or Oakland! (5375 miles). Even San Diego (mentioned in the announcement) is possible.

We know that planes get harder to fill the larger they get. Typically the carrier that flies to a destination the most frequently with a competitive CASM. All of the LCC efforts (Laker Airlines, People Express, etc) that were transatlantic in the past used bug metal (DC-10s or 747s) and had trouble consistently filling them up. The larger carriers forced international service to be restricted to their hubs to build the demand to fill the airplane.

Now with openskies the Low Cost Carriers can access the European markets much more easily. But all of the carriers are built on minimizing the number of different airplanes in their fleet to reduce maintainence cost. It seems a streach for a Airbus carrier like F9 to start operating a 757 or even a 330 for transcons with the rest of their fleet oriented around smaller seat counts.

The 737-700ER has more then a thousand nautical miles on any other narrowbody (5,510 to be exact - the 757 had 4,100 and the 319LR has 4,500nm). That would allow for non-stop service from ATL or even LAX to LHR. And with 1/2 to 1/3rd the seat count of a 767 or 747 it should be much easier for the LCC's to use for OpenSkies service.

With all that in mind, does this put FR, WN and FL in a great position to start transatlantic service with a plane that already fits into their fleets pretty well? Will the US-EU openskies agreement spur demand for this plane? Will the Airbus low cost carriers B6 and F9 have to look to larger jets since the A319LR doesn't can't do LGB to LHR or DEN to LHR? Would the CASM difference between a 737-700ER and larger widebodies kill the idea?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline2travel2know From Panama, joined Apr 2005, 3580 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3736 times:

Are you well aware that those B737-700ER have all that extra range when compared to the standard B737-700 since part of their baggage area is used actually as fuel tanks?


I don't work for COPA Airlines!
User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3919 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Thread starter):
Would the CASM difference between a 737-700ER and larger widebodies kill the idea?

Almost certainly.


PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE.
You should not believe everything the media says. The long haul venture MOL speaks of is to be a TOTALLY SEPERATE airline to FR. It will not ahve the same people, managment team, or fleet. Michael O'Leary will not be the CEO, but the chairman. Ultra premium cabins are planned.

The airline would have some of the key business ideas (secondary airports, use of teh media, etc) but it is not going to operate 737's. It is more likely to operate 787-9 or A350-800/900. CASM will be very important.

Brian.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineMSYtristar From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 6531 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3630 times:

Isn't ANA flying the plane in an all C/F configuration? This is likely the only way for the plane to be profitable on the long hauls.

While the CASM would be horrible, the idea is interesting. You could open up, at least, fifteen new U.S markets for direct European service.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Breaking point to point on Transatlantic flights down to 737s is going too far. It may work for luxury charters but it is impractical for scheduled service. Even 757 service is going to become difficult to sustain if fuel prices go higher. CASM is too high and 737s cannot carry cargo cans. Also a 737-700ER could only reliably operate to the East Coast, the Great Lakes region and parts of the midwest. Oakland is at the ragged edge and could certainly not be operated with a full load and would not make it with any load if there is a strong headwind.

The excesses of smaller planes providing more frequent and more point to point service will start to break down in the face of fuel costs and overcrowded big city airports. The premium gained from higher direct fares will more often not be enough to offset the higher cost versus hub stops.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6389 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

There are already A319 and 737 planes doing transatlantic runs today. Recently my boss flew Houston - Amsterdam on such a plane.

But it was configured for roughly 50 seats - all more or less first class.

To every range figure there is a corresponding payload figure. When talking ranges such as 4,500/5,500nm for A319LR/737-700ER, does anybody know on what payload figures that is based?

I only know that FR would love to stuff 170 pax into a 737-700ER. But with much of the space below deck filled with fuel tanks they would probably put a towed glider behind to hold the baggage.

Or what about a 737 with two large drop tanks under the wings? Or tip tanks on top of the winglets  Wow!



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4105 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 2):
Ultra premium cabins are planned.

I could have sworn I read about $25 fares?


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3500 times:

Yes, but the idea of being cramped inside for a few hours is not that exciting. Only the price could be.

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11463 posts, RR: 61
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3483 times:

Well, prior to Continental taking that "one giant leap" for airlinekind and really making transatlantic 757s a major part of their European growth strategy, many didn't think that 757s could be deployed in markets across the pond efficiently and viably. Long-term, I think it is only a matter of time before we see more 73Ws running on some long, narrow routes where widebodies just aren't economically feasible but where a 50-100 seat, ultra-long-range 737 could perfectly serve a narrow market linking a huge U.S. hub to a major European city. (I'm thinking DEN-MXP, DFW-MUC, SFO-TXL, EWR-everywhere, etc.).

User currently offlineBeechNut From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 723 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3472 times:

And a $25 per bag baggage fee, and $25 for peanuts, and $25 for a pillow, and $25 for a beer, and $25 for on-board entertainement. Then there are all those $25 taxes and airport fees...

Beech


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2825 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3460 times:

Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 1):
Are you well aware that those B737-700ER have all that extra range when compared to the standard B737-700 since part of their baggage area is used actually as fuel tanks?

But how much cargo are they going to want to do? FR already has a model where extra baggage is premium.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 2):

You should not believe everything the media says. The long haul venture MOL speaks of is to be a TOTALLY SEPERATE airline to FR. It will not ahve the same people, managment team, or fleet. Michael O'Leary will not be the CEO, but the chairman. Ultra premium cabins are planned.

I havn't seen this anywhere yet. Is this the same as the $12 across the atlantic rhetorical airline? That would be a neat trick to get ultra premium on the same frame.


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3391 times:

If this is H2H, who cares, it won't work. But a -700 premimum P2P from Dallas to Lagos, or "X " to LAD, yea, it will have takers. I'm one.

The -700 roll out a bit back was barely noticed, nice looking jet.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 2):
You should not believe everything the media says. The long haul venture MOL speaks of is to be a TOTALLY SEPERATE airline to FR. It will not ahve the same people, managment team, or fleet. Michael O'Leary will not be the CEO, but the chairman. Ultra premium cabins are planned.

Indeed. Its sounds like what MOL is trying to do since the Aer Lingus thing fell through.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

When a plane starts flying considerably further nonstop that it 'natural' range CASM starts to rocket. Essentially because it has to carry tons of fuel to go that extra distance, which in turn means it burns more to get there in the first place, which means you have to carry even more fuel, ect.

So whilst the 737 may have the legs to do it, it might not be economical to so apart from in a premium set up like Privatair.


User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3919 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 5):
There are already A319 and 737 planes doing transatlantic runs today. Recently my boss flew Houston - Amsterdam on such a plane.

But it was configured for roughly 50 seats - all more or less first class.

But he flew in Business class. That flight only offers business class, and a premium is charged for the direct routing. This is a niche market, which would not neessarily translate into the general market.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 5):

I only know that FR would love to stuff 170 pax into a 737-700ER. But with much of the space below deck filled with fuel tanks they would probably put a towed glider behind to hold the baggage.

IMPOSSIBLE. 149 is absolute max on the -700, no matter what FR want to do.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 6):

I could have sworn I read about $25 fares?

You did, but MOL's project has been misrepresented in the media. The long haul carrier would use elements from the current FR business plan, but not all of them. For the premium cabin think EK Sky Suite or VS upper class, and your'e pretty close by all accounts. MOL has seen how EK has made its network work, and we should expect something similar. He spoke fo very high fares in that cabin, 5-10K EUR. Seems pretty steep to me.....

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 10):

I havn't seen this anywhere yet. Is this the same as the $12 across the atlantic rhetorical airline? That would be a neat trick to get ultra premium on the same frame.

Not really. If the aircraft were to be boarded through L2 the premium passengers would never see the lo-co ones they are subsidising.

Brian.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlineBosWashSprStar From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 4):
Even 757 service is going to become difficult to sustain if fuel prices go higher.

I'm interested to hear more about this point--does anyone else agree or disagree? I thought I had heard something about United's p.s. service using 757s because they were a lot cheaper to operate on a CASM basis than the 767s they had previously used on those routes. Was that advantage only because the prior planes were old 762s?

Also, CO is charging some pretty low fares for a lot of their EWR-Europe 757 services--In the last six months, I've seen standard (buy-ahead, off-peak) fares in the $300-$400 range for roundtrips to the secondary German cities, for example, and even lower than that in a few of their big sales. That's a lot lower than you usually see for flights to places like CDG and FRA these days. Is CO only barely breaking even on these flights? Or are the bigger cities just outrageously profitable?


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8416 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2572 times:

Totally disagree. 757 service is stronger than 767 service, when fuel prices rise. You get almost the same revenue, ideally 100% in C class and all your highest coach fares, while burning less fuel. CASM is seldom the way airlines plan their flying. You can fly empty planes LAX-NYC or LAX-Dubai to lower your CASM but it's a dumb thing to do.

Take a look at the price distribution of demand. If you have a 1 seat airplane someone will pay $5000 for the seat. Each seat you add will bring in less money, until finally no one will pay even $100 for it. CASM totally ignores this. Ultimately every airline surrenders the CASM battle because it is pointless. To get maximum profit you need a quite small airplane, sometimes.

This is why the A380 is so risky, and why the 747 is in decline today (yes, sadly). If the extra 80 seats are all cheap fares, you'd rather just employ a 777.

The 737-700ER has a niche. It is a pure business airplane. It can be used to siphon business class demand out of today's networks by doing nonstop flights nobody has done yet. Japan-China on ANA is a good example.


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...
Is Southwest Ordering The 737-700ER? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 04:08:45 by SWABFA
Range Vs Payload Chart On The 737-700ER? posted Tue Jun 13 2006 12:28:59 by OyKIE
The New US Airways And The 737-400s posted Thu Mar 9 2006 19:43:41 by United777ORD
Are The 320/737 Too Big For US Network Carriers... posted Fri Jan 27 2006 18:28:47 by Boeing7E7
NG 737's In The US posted Sun Sep 5 2004 22:18:41 by Matt D
KLM/AF Seal The Deal With EU And US DOJ posted Thu Feb 12 2004 01:52:22 by Jetjack74
The Ultimate Plane Spotter posted Sat Mar 3 2001 04:31:52 by CactusA319
News: US/EU & The A380 posted Wed Jan 10 2001 21:27:13 by B757300
What Killed The UA / US Meger Attempt In 2000? posted Wed Apr 11 2007 19:31:06 by EmSeeEye
What Is It About The Front Gear Of This Plane? posted Mon Apr 9 2007 08:10:57 by HAMAD