Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B767-400 For TZ?  
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Posted (7 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6660 times:

while i understand that buying DC-10s from NW was probably cheaper than new-build 767s from boeing, would the 767-400 fit into the role that TZ is using the L1011s/DC-10s for? my understanding is that the 764 was designed as an L1011 replacement for DL/CO originally, and no other carriers use them as yet. still, i think it would have been a better investment for the long term to get the 764s from boeing, if it were possible. 'sides, the airplane would have looked awesome in thier new scheme!


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6623 times:

Must've been a cost issue, plus the fact that TZ has a history with the DC-10. They've never had any type of 767 in their fleet, so maintenence and training costs for the new type may have been prohibitive...


Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6521 times:

If you're Delta and you fly your 767-400 11 hours per day, you make enough money to pay the mortgage on the plane.

If you're ATA and you only fly 3 hours a day (guesstimate), that won't pay the mortgage on a new jet.

A DC-10 is great because you can keep it on the tarmac without a big monthly payment. The 764 is a lovely jet but the price tag is too high for ad-hoc charter work. That would be a waste of a nice jet.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5654 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6469 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):
If you're ATA and you only fly 3 hours a day (guesstimate), that won't pay the mortgage on a new jet.

Wasnt this one big reason why they ended up in BK?



Next trip: SLC-DEN-SLC-PHX-JFK-LAX-SLC with my wife and oldest daughter. F9 to and from DEN, US to JFK, AA 321 and CR7
User currently offlineLN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1908 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6460 times:

For starters, the availability for 764's right now is zero. Only DL and CO operate the type. Secondly, as mentioned above, the pricetag is too high. Thirdly, even used 763's on today's market turned out to be too expensive for TZ to be able to run them profitably. That was the reason they went with DC-10's, to provide lift in the interim period until 787 deliveries makes more 763's available at a reasonable price. As a charter carrier, TZ is not able to utilize their widebodies at the same rate as a scheduled carrier would, and it is therefore more sensitive to aircraft prizing.


- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6097 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

History with the DC-10 was not as big of an issue as you might think. The Maintenance Program still had to be re-designed, the crews had to be trained. It was as if we never owned the aircraft. A lot has happened in 10 years with this airline and that frame. Now with regard to 767s, it is all about availability. As LN-MOW has stated, there are no 767s on the market here in '07 in advance of the 787 production binge. And the scant few that are available are so expensive that most well established carriers cant afford them let alone TZ. The variant that TZ needs is at least a -300ER or a -400ER, and to get a -400ER it would have to be new. To get a -300ER takes work, especially if you are leaning towards acquiring ones with CF6's on them instead of the Pratt engines. When we last tried to acquire a 767, an Asiana bird, the lease rate had climbed to somewhere in the neighborhood of $550k a month when we turned them down.

As far as acquisition options that ATA has, here is a very general rundown of the performance of the aircraft in the "L1011 Class":

----------------L1011-500---------DC-10-30-----------767-300ER--------767-400ER------A330-200------A330-300

Pax Cap:------283---------------318----------------350 (max)--------375 (max)-------293 (max)---------335 (max)
Range: ------5345 Nmi-------6220 Nmi---------5975 Nmi----------5625 Nmi-------6750 Nmi----------5650 Nmi
MTOW------231,000 lbs-----572,000 lbs------412,000 lbs------450,000 lbs-----507,000 lbs------507,000 lbs


As you can see, the DC-10 is unique in that it has the most range for the most passengers. The config listed is ATAs current, but Boeing says that the max capacity is 380, higher then any of the other options. It is also readily available (or was at the time ATA needed it) in the quantities that ATA needs. And for the price, which was a lot lower than the 767, the airframes are a good deal.

I would love to see ATA order some new airframes, but my wager is that if they do so, it will be 787s in 7-10 years and they will replace the DC-10s in between then and now with used 767s as they become more plentiful after the 787 makes its production debut.

I hope this helps a little more with the future of ATA's widebody fleet. The only factor that this theory doesn't control is if they need the lift ASAP for international expansion a la WN codeshare. Mattlin Patterson might pony up the money if they think it would turn a long term profit in that regard.



For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6041 times:

Quoting LN-MOW (Reply 4):
For starters, the availability for 764's right now is zero.

I hope you are referring to used 764s? Boeing still has the 767 line open, and all versions of the 767 are still available if an airline wants a new one.

Also, IIRC, the U.S. military, for which TZ does a good amount of lift for, has a requirement for three or for engined aircraft for oceanic flights. If that is still a requirement it means TZ could not use the 767 if it wanted, and its choice of aircraft was limited to newer L1011s, DC-10s, MD-11s, 340s or 747s.



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 2):
If you're Delta and you fly your 767-400 11 hours per day, you make enough money to pay the mortgage on the plane.

If you're ATA and you only fly 3 hours a day (guesstimate), that won't pay the mortgage on a new jet.

BINGO...it is a fixed cost issue...the D10s have high operating costs, but you bill the Govt, plus the D10s are paid for.


User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 764 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 6):

Also, IIRC, the U.S. military, for which TZ does a good amount of lift for, has a requirement for three or for engined aircraft for oceanic flights. If that is still a requirement it means TZ could not use the 767 if it wanted, and its choice of aircraft was limited to newer L1011s, DC-10s, MD-11s, 340s or 747s.

Not sure about that. The USAF operates 737, 757, and Gulfstream aircraft transoceanic. The USN also has Gulfstreams, 737, and DC-9's.


User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6029 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 6):
a requirement for three or for engined aircraft for oceanic flights

This is not the case. The AMC program was designed with the 767-300 in mind, in fact the rumor is that for the money, the 767-300ER makes the most profit in AMC flying. That was one of the biggest acquisition points when ATA was looking at them. The aircraft have to be ETOPS, but TZ routinely substitutes 757-300 and 757-200 on transoceanic flights for the AMC program.



For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6021 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With regard to the fixed costs, they are only partially subsidized by the Government. It would have still been better for ATA to acquire 767s at a similar or slightly higher cost then it would be for the DC-10. The maintenance costs don't come off, and new 767s would be a lot less intensive then the fleet leader in hours for the entire DC-10-30 Fleet.

[Edited 2007-08-01 16:36:17]


For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5948 times:

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 3):
Wasnt this one big reason why they ended up in BK?

High fuel prices, low ticket prices. I saw Mr Mikelsons in front of IND one day and he said, full planes, no money. The scheduled service planes had to be getting a better usage than 3 hours a day. For charters, that could be closer to correct.

As for the 764, I believe the 763 would be a much better plane for TZ purposes. The military charters have heavy cargo, meaning the soldier's gear. The better range and more compatible (size wise) with subbing for the 753 when necessary on scheduled service. Of course, MDW would be excluded.

M

[Edited 2007-08-01 16:45:31]

User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5924 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 6):
Also, IIRC, the U.S. military, for which TZ does a good amount of lift for, has a requirement for three or for engined aircraft for oceanic flights. If that is still a requirement it means TZ could not use the 767 if it wanted, and its choice of aircraft was limited to newer L1011s, DC-10s, MD-11s, 340s or 747s

I flew many troops across the Atlantic on a 757-200 and -300.

M


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5871 times:

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 5):
As far as acquisition options that ATA has, here is a very general rundown of the performance of the aircraft in the "L1011 Class":

----------------L1011-500---------DC-10-30-----------767-300ER--------767-400ER------A330-200------A330-300
Pax Cap:------283---------------318----------------350 (max)--------375 (max)-------293 (max)---------335 (max)
Range: ------5345 Nmi-------6220 Nmi---------5975 Nmi----------5625 Nmi-------6750 Nmi----------5650 Nmi
MTOW------231,000 lbs-----572,000 lbs------412,000 lbs------450,000 lbs-----507,000 lbs------507,000 lbs

I thihk you need to look at the L-1011-500 numbers.
Pax Cap: .......283? depending on configuration is up to 315.
Range:...........5345 Nmi? close enough
MTOW...........231,000 lbs? actually its 514,000 lbs.


User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5850 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sorry, 283 is what ATA is configured at, same as the number for the DC-10. I pulled the MTOW number off of the Airliners data page and did't cross check it though I should have.

Thanks for the correct.



For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1452 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5850 times:

While it is perfectly OK to be inquisitive and ask questions why airlines (TZ in this case) do certain things, I often wonder if everyone understands how these decisions come about. Over the last few years, there have been many professional people in this company that have searched, looked at, studied, analyzed, etc. many aircraft including the 747-200, 767-300, 767-200, 777-200, A340-200/300, MD11, and DC10 as suitable replacements for the L-1011s. After factoring in our unique AMC operations (all ad-hoc of approx. 1.5 cycles/day), acquisition costs, availability, lease rates, etc., the DC10 was the ONLY short-term viable business case that would be consistently profitable.

They are currently on 5 year leases with extend options. If during that period or after, there become more viable options, they will be explored. My personal opinion is they will only be 5-7 year aircraft, if that, as it will become more difficult to maintain like the L-1011 as world operators decline especially for interior items as TZ, Omni, and World will probably be the very last pax operators of the type.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5808 times:

Quoting LN-MOW (Reply 4):
For starters, the availability for 764's right now is zero. Only DL and CO operate the type. Secondly, as mentioned above, the pricetag is too high. Thirdly, even used 763's on today's market turned out to be too expensive for TZ to be able to run them profitably.

In the end, might the decision to go with DC-10s come back and haunt TZ, given they're already very much used airplanes and they might have to be replaced sooner than TZ anticipated, if for no other reason than operating economics (fuel prices and maintenance)? In the long run, TZ might have done better to try to get some of those "expensive" 767s because it would have given them an airplane that might save them money over a period of years.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12135 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5797 times:

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 9):
This is not the case. The AMC program was designed with the 767-300 in mind, in fact the rumor is that for the money, the 767-300ER makes the most profit in AMC flying. That was one of the biggest acquisition points when ATA was looking at them. The aircraft have to be ETOPS, but TZ routinely substitutes 757-300 and 757-200 on transoceanic flights for the AMC program.

Remember, North American also flies AMC charters, and they do it with B-767-300ERs. Isn't World and NA part of TZ now?

BTW, here at DFW today, TZ has 2 L-1011-500s parked, and 1 DC-10-30 (N702TZ). The DC-10 is still in NW colors, but has "ATA" painted in yellow on each side. Looks very strange. Also the registration number is painted in either black, or a very dark blue (it is cloudy here at DFW today).


User currently offlineLN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1908 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5698 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 16):
In the end, might the decision to go with DC-10s come back and haunt TZ, given they're already very much used airplanes and they might have to be replaced sooner than TZ anticipated

It's a matter of calculating the costs involved in having an expensive 'new' aircraft sitting on the ground 16 hours of the day versus the additional operating costs for a 'paid off old plane' in the air for 8.

It's a reason NW still flies the DC-9 .... and they have a lot higher utilization than TZ's Diesel 10's.



- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
User currently offlineSKY1 From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 879 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5544 times:

I wonder if Boeing will see more 767-400 metal sold to other carriers (Maybe as a 787 interim solution?)


Time flies! Enjoy life!
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5471 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Isn't World and NA part of TZ now?

Although we are not sure how it is all going to work I will tell you this much: World and North American are not a part of ATA. They are owned by the same parent company (or will be pending government approval) but are separate companies. The 763ERs that NA has are theirs alone. In fact, the DC-10s that are going to World are being subleased, so it isn't as if ATA is getting zero kickback for the birds.

And TZTriStar, I think you hit it right on the money. Speculation is fun, but there are a lot of people being paid a lot of money to do this sort of thing. And until I am one of them, all I can do is make conjecture.

You have to admit though, it would be nice to see a shiny new 764ER in ATA colors... Wink



For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5154 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5388 times:

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 7):
the D10s have high operating costs, but you bill the Govt

Actually, the operators are paid by the gov't per seat-mile, within groups of aircraft types (large, medium, small). An MD-80 is small, a 752 is medium, an MD11 is large. 10.18 cents per contracted seat-mile for large and 12.5 cents per contracted seat-mile for medium (plus stop charges and certain adjustments). A DC10-30 is "large", and gets paid at the 10.18 cents per seat-mile rate, while the 763 gets paid at the 12.5 cents rate. Typically, the AMC pays for 240 seats on the 763 and 330 on the DC10-30, so the per-mile rate is more comparable than it seems from the per-seat-mile rates.

Those who point out the utilization issue are correct. The point is that where utilization levels are uncertain, having a low-capital-cost aircraft is a hedge against the slow periods: if you're not using it, you're not paying too much for it to sit. The higher costs to utilize it limit your profitability per hour, but you balance that against the fact that a higher-capital-cost aircraft might make you unprofitable overall. An alternative is a full power-by-the-hour lease, which WOA, for example, had on one of its cargo DC10s. When they used it, they paid for it; when they didn't, they didn't. Naturally, it cost a bunch to use when they used it, but they didn't use it unless they really needed it. You don't want *all* your capital assets to be on that basis, but the ones at the margins certainly can be. Nobody has talked about reliability here, which is another major issue in military contracts: the AMC has timeliness and reliability requirements that are very, very punitive, and maintenance and operations standards that are written in blood. Newer aircraft are broadly-speaking more reliable than older, and can better-withstand the rigors of a high operating tempo (when it happens) and can, as a result of greater parts/maintenance availability in remote locations, be fixed faster when they do break, so operating older aircraft in AMC service requires operating procedures and practices (like bases where certain parts are stored and putting mechanics on every flight, etc.) that cost money and might not be as necessary with newer aircraft. That said, however, it appears that the best business case, taking into account these factors as well, was made with the DC10s.

In short, the optimal aircraft for TZ's charter use is going to be the one that best fits the range of potential utilization that it will face: the highest potential highs, the lowest potential lows, and the most-likely utilization (which will include moving nonstop during high op-tempo periods and not at all for long periods in between).

Quoting Typhaerion (Reply 9):
but TZ routinely substitutes 757-300 and 757-200 on transoceanic flights for the AMC program.

It's less "subsitution" than actually assigning that aircraft to the mission, given the ACL (cabin load) required by the AMC for the mission. Ryan and North American also are asked to provide 752s on certain long-range international military missions.


User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5219 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 21):
It's less "subsitution" than actually assigning that aircraft to the mission, given the ACL (cabin load) required by the AMC for the mission.

Of that I am aware, but often the requirement is for more widebody lift then we can provide and therefore we have the "substitute" a 753 instead. That was the situation to which I was referring.

But thank you for the clarification.



For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
User currently offlineAsuflyer05 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2371 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 weeks ago) and read 4810 times:

Would it make sense for ATA to put their DC10s through the Boeing MD10 conversion process?

User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8671 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 weeks ago) and read 4536 times:

Quoting Asuflyer05 (Reply 23):
Would it make sense for ATA to put their DC10s through the Boeing MD10 conversion process?

Might not be worth if they're going to be around for little time and these are leased planes.

Hunter



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
25 Nwarooster : One thing that a lot of you are ignoring is that a DC-10 is a three engine aircraft that gives it an advantage over any twin engine aircraft. If the D
26 Wjcandee : Gotcha. I was just thinking that if the 757 was actually called for on some International CRAF missions, it refuted the poster's contention that the
27 Typhaerion : In addition, we already have the three man crews required to take the bird out as they are needed for our L1011 aircraft. That conversion is expensiv
28 Post contains images Itsnotfinals : don't they need engines too? Why do people on Anet talk about frames when they mean aircraft or airplane. An airframe doesn't do anyone any good with
29 Post contains images Typhaerion : Well as long as the frame can mount an serviceable RB211 from an L1011 aircraft we have plenty of those. It wont be able to fly, but it will at least
30 Wjcandee : They slowed it down in the wake of 9/11. Original plan: 70 MD10s plus options. At the time it slowed, they had like 16 of them. They now have, accord
31 747400sp : Those DC10 are better for ATA, the 767 400 do not have the speed are width that a DC10 has, also those DC10s have more range.
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...
Q-400's For CO In EWR posted Mon Feb 5 2007 17:11:22 by CLE757
New Pics Of DL's B767-400 W/ BE posted Fri Dec 29 2006 17:43:28 by N808DE
Operators Of The B767-400 posted Sat Dec 2 2006 02:31:36 by Continental123
IL96-400 For Air Zimbabwe posted Tue Aug 15 2006 22:27:32 by Kaitak
First B767-300ER For LAN Argentina posted Sat Jul 15 2006 21:54:01 by RJ_Delta
Last Day For TZ's Last L1011-100? posted Tue Feb 28 2006 08:01:00 by Wjcandee
3rd 747-400 For Corsair At Orly posted Tue Jul 12 2005 18:01:43 by FCKC
Trade CO 737-700s For TZ 753s! posted Mon Jul 11 2005 23:49:16 by ChiGB1973
B767-400 - Waste Of Time & Money? posted Fri Jun 10 2005 11:43:29 by Avalon
3 More B767-300ER For AC? posted Thu May 19 2005 23:46:20 by Ktachiya