Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787: Will DL Be Behind In Developing Intl Routes?  
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 812 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 9753 times:

With DL's planned delivery of the 787 in 2020, will the airline find itself behind others in developing long and thin routes? In Asia will it be tied to using its NRT hub vs having the ability to overfly? Globally, what routes provide the biggest opportunity for DL that it will lose out on because it waited too late to take delivery of the 787? With recent 787 cancellations, is it possible/probably/likely DL will take earlier deliveries of the 787? Is SkyTeam behind Star Alliance and oneworld in taking delivery of the 787 or on par?

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCoronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1182 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 9473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With oil at 100USD/bar the 787 will inevitably just become a 767 replacement. Whether you call them long thin routes or ultra long haul routes I don't see much of a future for them. More global hubs allowing aircraft to not be burdened with using fuel to carry fuel unfortunately means most new announced long thin routes IMHO will fade away within two years. The compelling cost advantage of putting a 787 on existing profitable 767 routes I think will overcome any considerations of trying to get a revenue premium on experimental new overflight routings.


The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
User currently offlineCuriousFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 700 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 9307 times:

This would mean that DL would lose a lot of money on their 767 routes because they would be facing UA and AA's 787s?

User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5472 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 9307 times:

Continuing along the lines of Coronado's post, given the economy -- or lack thereof -- that exists currently in most places I think the potential for the 787 opening a lot of new, thin, long routes will be minimized. There will be some plucking of the low hanging fruit (which has already begun) but I just don't see DL missing out on much. Who knows, perhaps by the time DL starts to receive the DreamLiner, the economic climate will be more stable and there might be some routes ready to support new service at that time. It's all about timing!

I keep seeing thread after thread talking about how small cities are expecting (hoping) to see nonstop intercontinental routes soon. The game has indeed changed with this amazing new airplane, and others to follow, but you still need a viable market to tap into in a time of expensive fuel and other costs. The cx with the 787 will start a handful of new routes -- in very carefully studied markets -- and the remainder of the new planes will probably just replace older, less fuel-efficient models.

bb


User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6496 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 9262 times:

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 2):
This would mean that DL would lose a lot of money on their 767 routes because they would be facing UA and AA's 787s?

DL might take in less revenue but I doubt they would be losing money since they would not have the expense of buying the aircraft.


User currently offlineGCT64 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 1411 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 9199 times:

Quoting CuriousFlyer (Reply 2):
This would mean that DL would lose a lot of money on their 767 routes because they would be facing UA and AA's 787s?

DL will be paying more for the fuel for the trip (than UA/AA) but less for the aircraft (than UA/AA) [in depreciation/financing]. DL will know precisely how those relative pluses/minuses add up.



Flown in: A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A388,BA11,BU31,B190, B461,B462,(..51 types..),VC10,WESX
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10512 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 9093 times:

Quoting GCT64 (Reply 5):

DL will be paying more for the fuel for the trip (than UA/AA) but less for the aircraft (than UA/AA) [in depreciation/financing].

Perhaps DL's refinery will offset that.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9559 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 8962 times:

Quoting questions (Thread starter):

Not right now. Economy is just going to make a the 767 replacement. The only thing the 787 would do for Delta now is give them the chance to down grade 777/747 routes. (I think you would see much like you have seen with UA. maybe a new route or too but mostly replacing aircraft)



yep.
User currently offlinecentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 6563 times:

If we look at what JL, NH and UA are doing so far it is secondary hub to major hub or major secondary city to major hub.

UA: Denver to Tokyo (NH is also looking at this)
JL: Boston to Tokyo

IMO, for Skyteam there are several things to keep in mind for Asia.
1) KE is the largest carrier by routes in the region. The more connections with ICN the better.
2) DL seems to be moving conservatively when it comes to expanding in Asia.

In 8 years, the 787 might have a -10. This might be something DL will need. They can then replace 767s and older 772s with 787 of all three types. They have enough options and I think a strategy for using them.

767s - 787-8 / 787-9
772s - 787-9 / 787-10

This allows not only expansion in Asia but network wide including South America and Africa.

P.S. been away from A.Net for a long time. Feel free to correct me.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13265 posts, RR: 100
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 6505 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It all depends on one's assumptions of oil prices. I personally believe we'll continue to grow.

The part DL will be hardest hit will be in Asia. NRT will continue to decline in importance. With the 787, ICN, PEK, PVG and others will see new connections that will bypass existing routes. DL could either be part of that... or not. The 787 will enable quite a few new routes from ICN. Some into the American SouthEast that will compete with DL.

Quoting centrair (Reply 8):
In 8 years, the 787 might have a -10.

Proposed range of the 787-10 will be shorter than what DL needs. I see the 789 being the primary model.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 4 hours ago) and read 6450 times:

Quoting Coronado (Reply 1):
With oil at 100USD/bar the 787 will inevitably just become a 767 replacement. Whether you call them long thin routes or ultra long haul routes I don't see much of a future for them. More global hubs allowing aircraft to not be burdened with using fuel to carry fuel unfortunately means most new announced long thin routes IMHO will fade away within two years. The compelling cost advantage of putting a 787 on existing profitable 767 routes I think will overcome any considerations of trying to get a revenue premium on experimental new overflight routings.

+1

Something I've also been saying for quite a while now.


User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4660 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 hours ago) and read 6233 times:

Coronado has it right. Long thin routes are just that, thin.


The 787 is a great 767 replacement and can open up a few new routes but that's not where all the revenue is.


The big money is on trunk routes between major cities and this requires 777-300 or above sized Aircraft.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineboilerla From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 6054 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The 787 is a great 767 replacement and can open up a few new routes but that's not where all the revenue is.


The big money is on trunk routes between major cities and this requires 777-300 or above sized Aircraft.

Why do you think that just because it's a trunk route that it requires a 773? The thing that UA and others are finding is that the 777 is too much plane, especially October-March, and even if you can ill it, oil makes it expensive to operate.

Example is UA switching LAX-PVG. A huge market with two major O&D cities, but in the winter it can't be filled reliably unless without some junk fares on the market. Switching it to a 788 allows UA to command a higher premium, reduce capacity, and reduce CASM. Win win all around.

Quoting centrair (Reply 8):

If we look at what JL, NH and UA are doing so far it is secondary hub to major hub or major secondary city to major hub.

UA: Denver to Tokyo (NH is also looking at this)
JL: Boston to Tokyo

  

UA has lots of potential routes like this. With LatAm traffic exploding, and China growing, there are lots of routes to secondary hubs that can be served.


User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4660 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 hours ago) and read 5958 times:

Quoting boilerla (Reply 12):

Why do you think that just because it's a trunk route that it requires a 773? The thing that UA and others are finding is that the 777 is too much plane, especially October-March, and even if you can ill it, oil makes it expensive to operate.

As a United employee I can tell you with great certainty, with our current management we are driving so many people away we will be lucky to fill a 737 on any of these trunk routes !


'Too much plane' is a self fulfilling prophecy and an excuse for weak management that has p**ed off so many passengers they won't return.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 12):



Example is UA switching LAX-PVG. A huge market with two major O&D cities, but in the winter it can't be filled reliably unless without some junk fares on the market. Switching it to a 788 allows UA to command a higher premium, reduce capacity, and reduce CASM. Win win all around.

Nonsense, see above, UA is the biggest airline in the world competing with the best Airlines in the Pacific. You don't see them using small Aircraft to connect major cities because they don't have to.


UA needs to fix their operation, not scale it down in the hope they can have a bigger slice of a smaller pie.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinepeachair From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 367 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4364 times:

I wonder if DL would consider picking up the cancelled QF order?

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4283 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The big money is on trunk routes between major cities and this requires 777-300 or above sized Aircraft.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
'Too much plane' is a self fulfilling prophecy and an excuse for weak management that has p**ed off so many passengers they won't return.

Big trunk routes won't make the airline any money if they have too much capacity. . . they will still make the pilots plenty of money, especially if they upgrade from 767/787 to 773!



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2765 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

Quoting centrair (Reply 8):
UA: Denver to Tokyo (NH is also looking at this)

I'm a bit confused with this. Is that which is in parenthesis here stating that NH also wants to get into the NRT-DEN market? If so, it would be great for DEN. However, with UA already in the market (well, soon entering it), I just don't see enough traffic with 2 carriers. It's even going to be a bit of a stretch on this route for UA by themselves here, with 22, 619 O&D pax per year between the two, or about a guesstimated 31 pax of the roughly 220 seats or so on each leg of the 787 flight, there is a lot of filling of seats to do. Even with the convenience of the n/s here probably adding a few bodies to the O&D here, this flight will still be mostly filled with connects. And not to fear, since I think that I recall Smisek stating that UA's other U.S./Tokyo flights would now be concentrating on the premium O&D traffic, DEN's role will be geared for the connects.

I will say that the City of Denver and DEN has been actively in the past (10 years or so) been doing all that they could to acquire this DEN-NRT nonstop, and NH was somewhat the presumed carrier if the route ever materialized. But now since that DEN found a way to provide UA with $22M, UA in return decided that they would fly this route.

With all of the above, I hardly see any room for NH here, eh? Beside, since UA and NH have anti-trust and revenue sharing here, it's all the same flight anyway........

 


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4522 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3613 times:

Quoting Coronado (Reply 1):
More global hubs allowing aircraft to not be burdened with using fuel to carry fuel unfortunately means most new announced long thin routes IMHO will fade away within two years

Bold prediction! Two years????


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

The 787 could help them in some areas, but they have such a diverse fleet, it really isn't needed that much. There are very few routes in DL's network that need the 787 range that they can't already cover.

The A332 and 763ERs have quite a bit of range. They can make routes like SEA-PEK with a 767 since DL has such high TOW 763ERs.

There are a few A332 and 763ER routes that are weight restricted such as DTW-HND. It can be argued that DL should never be operating DTW-HND in the first place.

The 787 is very useful with long thin routes, but DL operates essentially every airplane made, they can balance their fleet well enough. The one area is fuel burn, but Delta has decided that low acquisition costs is worth a fuel burn penalty hence getting 717s over C-series or E195s, MD90s over 738s, etc.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2765 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3477 times:

Since ideally long and thin is what the 787 does, and this is where DL would decide to make use here, I could see some possible MSP and SLC routes open up with these smaller two hubs (at least in terms of long and thin) here that are most likely here to stay, and also some other markets from the bigger hubs of ATL, DTW, JFK and LAX.

SLC could maybe see the return of NRT, and then maybe AMS (hub) or LHR (practical)
MSP could maybe see FRA or ICN.
DTW could maybe see SVO or TLV.
LAX could maybe see NGO, KIX, BOM or EZE
JFK could maybe see BOM, DEL, EZE, or SLC
ATL..... anything goes here.......

Just some options that I'm thinking out loud about here.....

  


User currently offlinecentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2927 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 16):
I'm a bit confused with this. Is that which is in parenthesis here stating that NH also wants to get into the NRT-DEN market? If so, it would be great for DEN. However, with UA already in the market (well, soon entering it), I just don't see enough traffic with 2 carriers.

Originally when NH took the 787, one route they stated was NRT-DEN. I have not heard that they will not do this. I doubt they will and instead will look to connect secondary Japanese cities to Star hubs ie NGO-ORD. NRT has limited space for expansion and HND has limited hours. This leaves using NGO and KIX with connections to NRT and HND.

One other route NH stated many years ago and got some Japanese press was NGO-SEA specifically for aerospace and tech industries.

Quoting point2point (Reply 19):
LAX could maybe see NGO, KIX, BOM or EZE

Those are possibilities. Especially BOM and EZE.
I think that at some point DL will change DTW-NGO-MNL from a 744 to a 777 and add a 787 LAX-NGO flight which connects to the NGO-MNL section. The DTW-NGO is all about automotive and aerospace but the MNL part is mostly cheap seats. It could end up the other way though 777 on LAX-NGO and 787 on DTW-NGO.

When JL ordered the 787, one of their stated desires was to relaunch NGO-LAX. NGO had a boom of North American routes in 2005 when the new airport opened but soon dropped off. We had AA with ORD-NGO and UA SFO-NGO. Both are possible 787 routes for Star and OneWorld.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlinelegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2091 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2844 times:

If they are still on it, I could see DL use the 787 on their SFO-NRT route.


John@SFO
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10512 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2559 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 19):
JFK could maybe see BOM, DEL, EZE, or SLC

Uh, don't we already fly JFK-SLC?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2765 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 22):
Uh, don't we already fly JFK-SLC?

Ooooops..... SCL.......



 


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...
WN/FL Merger - How Will DL Be Affected At ABQ? posted Fri Oct 29 2010 07:40:53 by 1337Delta764
Where Is/Will DL Be Using The DC-9? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 16:17:05 by c5load
787/737RS To Be Built In Texas? posted Mon Jan 28 2008 09:35:15 by NYC777
Will BA Be Better In Baggage Handling? posted Fri Nov 9 2007 09:14:14 by B747forever
Will DL Be The Only US Carrier To IST? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 17:57:56 by Gokmengs
Will DL Expand Internationally In 2007? posted Tue May 30 2006 21:34:50 by Cslusarc
How Will This Be Regulated In Mexico? posted Tue May 2 2006 23:32:49 by Tu154m
Will Pilots Be Needed In 30 Years? posted Sat Feb 12 2005 21:03:52 by Yanksn4
What Will You Be Flying In 2002? posted Fri Dec 7 2001 17:10:02 by AeroGlobeAir7
Should AeroAsia Be Allowed To Expand Intl. Routes? posted Sun Apr 22 2001 06:07:00 by GOOFY