Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would TZ Better Off Ordering B-767-400ER?  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

I know TZ is using their "new" DC-10-30s now, for their military charters, and a few charters to Hawaii. But, these former NW birds are old and have lots of hours and cycles on them, although they have been taken very good care of.

The DC-10-30s were bought because the airplanes TZ originally wanted, the B-767-300ERs, with GE engines were not available in time to replace the L-1011-500s.

But, would TZ have been better off ordering new build B-767-400ERs, instead of buying the DC-10s? I say the B-767-400ER because it carries the same number of pax as the DC-10-30, or about 25-30 more pax than the B-767-300ER. TZ could have gotten them at an attractive price, since Boeing wanted B-767 orders to keep the line open.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2564 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The DC-10-30s were bought because the airplanes TZ originally wanted, the B-767-300ERs, with GE engines were not available in time to replace the L-1011-500s.

well...one correction first...they wanted 767's with RR engines not GE...

the problem with the 767 is that they are going to use them for GOV charters and the GOV wants to use standard LD3's in 1 to 1....but the 767 uses LD2's. Now the GOV could still hire them with the 767's but they might loose some volume. I think they would have been better off picking up some 777's that UA returned to lessors or old RG ones, or perhaps some RG MD11's

-m

 airplane 


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2546 times:



Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1):
I think they would have been better off picking up some 777's that UA returned to lessors or old RG ones, or perhaps some RG MD11's

But weren't those B-777s just the "A" models (non ER -200)?

Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1):
well...one correction first...they wanted 767's with RR engines not GE...

Sorry, I thought they wanted GE CF-6s.


User currently offlineUnitedTristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2508 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
But weren't those B-777s just the "A" models (non ER -200)?

some were A and some were ER but even if they were A..they could still do the fuel stops as they do today.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Sorry, I thought they wanted GE CF-6s.

yea they wanted the RR because its the same engine they have experience with using the L1011

they wanted used models and the only two users are BA/QF and they were not getting rid of them anytime soon

-m

 airplane 


User currently offlineIFlyATA From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 242 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2445 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
TZ could have gotten them at an attractive price, since Boeing wanted B-767 orders to keep the line open.

What do you consider an attractive price? Because for what ATA got for the DC-10s was an AMAZING deal (in ATAs favor). I think NWA definitely was the looser.



ATA - an honestly different airline.
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2414 times:



Quoting IFlyATA (Reply 4):
Because for what ATA got for the DC-10s was an AMAZING deal (in ATAs favor). I think NWA definitely was the looser.

Not necessarily. NW got good use out of these birds and the price was commencurate for its age.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineLN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1908 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2404 times:



Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1):
the problem with the 767 is that they are going to use them for GOV charters and the GOV wants to use standard LD3's in 1 to 1...

Where on earth did you dream that? The government cares just as little about ULD configuration as whether the airline serves Coke or Pepsi .... That is the airline's decision. The government just want the lift.

Most military flights (also widebodies) are bulk loaded - or loaded on pallets - for easy offload. Highloaders are not widely in use on military facilities ..

All TZ aircraft are bulkloaded. If they would get 767's, they will also be bulkloaded. Its' just more practical. And there is no shortage of manpower on the bases. ...

New aircraft, like the 764, are also unsuitable for charterwork. You can not utilize the aircraft flying charters as well as you can with scheduled operations. That means that the capital costs go up and you won't be able to make money. For charter work, it is better with older aircraft/lower capital cost and higher operating cost (mx/fuel).



- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3704 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1):
the problem with the 767 is that they are going to use them for GOV charters and the GOV wants to use standard LD3's in 1 to 1....but the 767 uses LD2's.

Military charters are all bulk loaded my friend, they don't care about containers. Hell they don;t even use the lower deck on our freighters when we operate for them.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1452 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

This topic has been gone over time and time again. New or near new aircraft with high lease rates do NOT work in the ad-hoc AMC type business model. It would be impossible to plan the utilization for a brand new aircraft in this scenario. It may sit on the ramp for a week and your $150K in the hole just on lease payments.


Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
The DC-10-30s were bought because the airplanes TZ originally wanted, the B-767-300ERs, with GE engines were not available in time to replace the L-1011-500s.

No, they were the only viable alternative after scouring the planet for used 763ERs with attractive lease rates. There is no truth that GE engines were a must. GE engines were preferred, but we could not be too exclusive to pass up ANY 763ER. Beggars can't be choosers or too picky.

Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 1):
well...one correction first...they wanted 767's with RR engines not GE...

the problem with the 767 is that they are going to use them for GOV charters and the GOV wants to use standard LD3's in 1 to 1....but the 767 uses LD2's. Now the GOV could still hire them with the 767's but they might loose some volume. I think they would have been better off picking up some 777's that UA returned to lessors or old RG ones, or perhaps some RG MD11's

The RR engine exclusivity is false. Read above. When you say GOV, I think you mean AMC and they do not use any containerized cargo for troop movement and the AMC pricing model works best with an aircraft in the 763ER size so I don't think your facts are correct. Read above again, used 777s and even A340s where looked at and rejected due to the lease rates and the nature of the AMC business. They just don't work guys. The MD11 might have been a possibility except pax versions were scarce and one would have to fight with FedEx or UPS for them which drove up their rates.

Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 3):
yea they wanted the RR because its the same engine they have experience with using the L1011

they wanted used models and the only two users are BA/QF and they were not getting rid of them anytime soon

Incorrect as engine type was not really a factor. See above.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineHSVflier From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

i can say that military charters do not use containers, they volun-tell about ten troops to start slinging bags onto the aircraft with a civilian contractor overseeing the loading. also, the range of the 777s was probably not an issue since TZ uses 757s to fly troops to and from Kuwait as well as their L1011s.


Flown DL, UA, CO, WN, LH, TZ, WO, AA, US, LO, HA, PX, NW, KE, AB, QR, LX, EE, 5Y
User currently offlinePropilotJW From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 589 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1930 times:

ATA got their "fleet" of DC-10's for less than a new build 764

User currently offlineEGNR From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1834 times:



Quoting UnitedTristar (Reply 3):
yea they wanted the RR because its the same engine they have experience with using the L1011

they wanted used models and the only two users are BA/QF and they were not getting rid of them anytime soon

Only BA and China Yunnan ordered RR-powered B763s. QF operates some of the BA (767-336) aircraft on a lease, and the China Yunnan (767-3WO) aircraft are now part of the China Eastern fleet.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tango3 - Team Ninervictor
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zhao Lu




7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1790 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting EGNR (Reply 11):
QF operates some of the BA (767-336) aircraft on a lease

QF bought those birds outright, from BA, when the lease ran out in 2007.



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
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...
Would AC Have Been Better Off In Oneworld? posted Sun Jun 5 2005 09:06:33 by CXYYZ
Any More Airlines Ordering The 767-400ER? posted Tue Jun 27 2000 18:59:06 by Samurai 777
767-400ER - Future Interm Orders? posted Mon May 28 2007 17:59:28 by EI321
I Flew On A Delta Reconfigured Intl' 767-400ER! posted Wed Dec 27 2006 04:09:23 by ATLflyer
Headrests On Delta 767-400ER And 777-200ER posted Wed Oct 25 2006 20:31:42 by 1337Delta764
Delta International 767-400ER Conversions posted Thu Oct 19 2006 02:00:24 by 1337Delta764
Delta Domestic 767-400ER Seating posted Thu Oct 12 2006 17:52:32 by 1337Delta764
A UFO Boeing 767-400ER Never Built! posted Sun Oct 1 2006 22:55:03 by Beech19
Why No 777-100 Than 767-400er posted Tue Sep 12 2006 15:17:11 by Albird87
Delta 767-400ER International Update posted Tue Sep 12 2006 00:45:48 by 1337Delta764