Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cost Comparison - 2x 757 V 1x 777 TransAtlantic?  
User currently offlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3048 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5762 times:

Would anyone on here know the economics for airlines that operate multiple daily 757 routes across the Atlantic from the US to Europe, in comparison to them operating one wide-bodied aircraft like the 767/777/A330 that could carry a similar number of passengers in one load.

There is another thread on here about CO flying OSL-EWR twice daily from next summer, using 757's, hence why I am asking the question and got me thinking...
CO Increasing EWR-OSL To 14w Next Summer (by Arn777 Sep 26 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Obviously it must be viable for CO to use 757's and make the route profitable operating two of these aircraft on the one route, but surely in this day and age of high fuel and labour costs, it must make more economical sense to just operate a single larger aircraft.

(I know there is also the issue of CO's widebodied fleet maxxed out on other routes, but really only looking to discuss the cost comparison.)

Thanks in advance for any replies...

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4714 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5569 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter):


(I know there is also the issue of CO's widebodied fleet maxxed out on other routes, but really only looking to discuss the cost comparison.)

A bit more difficult to asses from an outsiders point of view, but the revenue paints a very important issue as well. 2x 757 is likely to be more expensive, but can bring in higher revenues because of the different timings.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5320 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Thread starter):
, it must make more economical sense to just operate a single larger aircraft.

They may not have any larger planes available. Sure, a 777 might work fine during the summer, but it would spend the winter flying half empty. And you can't cut a 777 in half and send it to two different destinations when it returns to EWR.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7028 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5273 times:

There are two considerations-one is cost and the other is yield. As JRadler points out, having a choice of flights might well bring in more passengers. And as BMI727 points out, they may not have a 777 available. US airlines in general seem to favor frequency over efficiency, and I don't believe it's because they all flunked elementary math. There is little question that flying 2 757's costs more than flying 1 777, but at the end of the day the real question is which one is more profitable. Also, to misquote Donald Rumsfeld, you go to the air with the planes you have, not with the ones you'd like to have.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineDl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5128 times:

A single 777 is most likely more cost effective in terms of operating costs but you may lose passengers depending on the flight time of that single flight

User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4982 times:

I know three different people who all will choose flights at different times to LHR. One swears by flying the day flight from YYZ to LHR. He has the luxury though of loosing the daytime and not worrying about the time lost from work. Another flies on the first flight that leaves at dinner time so it impacts his business day the least, and is among the first flights to arrive @ LHR. He grabs a hotel room for a quick nap to supplement his snooze on the plane and then goes right to work. He hasn't lost much working time. My parents however like leaving on a flight later in the evening because they find it best for sleeping on the plane. They try not to sleep when they arrive and might have a quick afternoon nap.

My whole point is people have very strong preferences about such things. Consolidating flights has a real danger to it despite what many say who are VLA pushers. Economically it might save money but there is a migration of customers away when flights are not as convenient. And many frequent fliers have multiple mileage plans in order to hedge their choices so they don't lose out.


User currently offlineEagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1880 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4906 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As above its a question of what you want to offer the market;
-Lower cost means lower ticket prices and maybe better load factor.
-Higher frequency means more options for passengers. And those time sensitive pax are often not cost sensitive so the airline may charge more, thus balancing out the higher costs of 2x B757 vs a single B777.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7498 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4878 times:

I think if one comes from a more regulated environment the benefits of frequency are not as easily seen, when competition (no other carrier) and choice (other carriers exist but slots are limited) is limited such consolidation make sense as customers have very little choice.
However when customers have choices including one stop flights, it becomes more important to look at the frequency if pax desire an early departure versus a later one. Many airports with hubs offer multiple connections that even the one stop would get you to your destination earlier than the consolidated flight.

There are more things to look at other than the fact that 2x757 are more expensive than 1x777.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4777 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
Sure, a 777 might work fine during the summer, but it would spend the winter flying half empty.

Unless it is sent to a destination that is in high season during the winter (GIG, HNL, I don't know).

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3):
US airlines in general seem to favor frequency over efficiency, and I don't believe it's because they all flunked elementary math.

European airlines do not fly 757s across the Atlantic. While I agree that the US airlines probably didn't flunk elementary math, judging from the respective performances during the last decade or so, it would seem that European airlines got As and Bs, while US airlines got mostly Cs...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently onlinedavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7415 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4740 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 8):
European airlines do not fly 757s across the Atlantic.

Which is true if we ignore Open Skies; and delving back some years, BA did use them from BHX and GLA then we had ZB, AE and DP doing charters to Orlando.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4709 times:

Quoting david_itl (Reply 9):
Which is true if we ignore Open Skies; and delving back some years, BA did use them from BHX and GLA then we had ZB, AE and DP doing charters to Orlando.

True, but both Open Skies and the charters are different propositions from the AA, CO, US flights. I didn't know that BA had flown 757s across the Atlantic. Still...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7498 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4656 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 8):
European airlines do not fly 757s across the Atlantic.

Correct, they use even smaller A3X a/c from LCY, but that's another story. 
The question would be which other smaller markets the Europeans are looking to open up to the US, Canada or Mexico. European development consolidated air travel around major airports, the same holds true in Canada and Mexico but not in the US, the fact that there is no curfew on the US side means that a market could exist, but European's are already content to travel via their major hubs.
US carriers denied access to LHR in particular started opening secondary markets using smaller capacity a/c, at least they tried something rather than just sit and moan, at least they offered their clients an option.


User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4572 times:

It's just a matter of personal prefernce but as a Continental FF my choice of flight into Heathrow from the NYC area has often in more recent times been based upon when the 777 was offered as opposed to when the 757's were offered.

Many valid points have been made above but for me on an overnight flight to London I'm more comfortable in a twin aisle aircraft than a 757. The seat itself may not be any bigger in economy but the twin aisles give more passengers more room to stretch their legs so the aisles are less crowded. As such I've also chosen the code share CO/Virgin flights at times to travel on a larger aircraft. Also on the return flight 7.5 hours on a 757 is a long time on a single aisle aircraft - give me a 767 , 777, 747, or A330 any day of the week.

if I'm in business I don't much care - the 757 will do fine in that situation.


User currently onlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2899 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
European development consolidated air travel around major airports, the same holds true in Canada and Mexico but not in the US, the fact that there is no curfew on the US side means that a market could exist, but European's are already content to travel via their major hubs.

This is not totally exact. European airlines fly (or used to) to places like BWI, MCO, LAS, PHX, SAN, PDX from where there is (or was) no European service on US airlines.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2704 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4454 times:

Quoting Dl767captain (Reply 4):
A single 777 is most likely more cost effective in terms of operating costs but you may lose passengers depending on the flight time of that single flight

The 2 X 752 vs. 1 X 772ER isn't an exact trade. The 2 X 752s have 65 more total seats (83 more in Y), even though the 772ER would have 18 more BF seats vs. 2 X 752s.
So, if the market was heavier in BF traffic vs. Y, then the 772 maybe a better option, but most likely the added 65 total seats would be a better option, especially when you include the fact that a second set of timings would provide better and/or more connections.
Then you have the other constraints such as aircraft availability, gates, slots and competition.


User currently onliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2742 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3774 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 8):

European airlines do not fly 757s across the Atlantic. While I agree that the US airlines probably didn't flunk elementary math, judging from the respective performances during the last decade or so, it would seem that European airlines got As and Bs, while US airlines got mostly Cs...

I'm pretty sure some EU airlines would love to have 757's around nowadays. The problem is that in the past, European airlines had used the 757 only for its capacity, not its range (no US transcon to worry about), so when the time came they were replaced by A321's that could do the (short-haul) job better. By the time [US] airlines "discovered" the transatl capabilities of the 757 and it became fashionable to fly them across the pond, European airlines had replaced most of theirs.

Coming back to the OP, we all agree that operating a 777 costs less than 2 757's. But the 757 gives you a lot of flexibility to play around with capacity & frequency that larger widebodies don't. In the case of OSL the reason is likely a/c availability more than anything else, but at larger hubs, multiple 757's could give you the possibility to catch different connecting banks, for instance.


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7342 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3168 times:

If they're just starting and building a market it is logical to start small and build it up, rather than start big and have it scrapped after 6months for not making enough for a 772 route...

Start with 1 757 -> Make a profit/exceed demand -> start a 2nd flight -> make a profit/exceed demand -> upgrade a/c etc etc

Start with a 777 -> Fly half empty while you build up the market/Don't make money -> Yields management decide to cancel flights/route in order to use the aircraft somewhere they know they can fill and make money to....

It's more to do with where else can a 777 that makes more money..... A 777 can do EWR-HKG. A 757 can't, so it makes sense to utilize the 757 on routes within it's optimum, and a 777 within it's optimum range.

2x 757s will probably cost just over what it costs to pump a 777 (say 90t vs 80t) enough gas to operate the same route, with the benefit of a few more seats. they lose out on Cargo payload to a 777 but if there is not much cargo on the route then that's ok too - and again it makes sense to use a 777 to where you need to haul a few pallets to, rather than send it empty to OSL.


User currently offlinegingersnap From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2010, 898 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 12):

Agreed. I too am not a good one for a long flight onboard a narrowbody...but everyone is different.
Fortunately for me, i've always been on a widebody across the pond (747, 767, 777).

I once however did have the pleasure of spending 6.5hrs on a TOM 752 from SSH to LTN thanks to some mean headwinds. Not an experience i'd like to repeat anytime in the near future I might add.



Flown on: A306 A319/20/21 A332 B732/3/4/5/7/8 B742/4 B752 B762/3 B772/W C152 E195 F70/100 MD-82 Q400
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2311 times:

For the major airlines the comparison A380 vs. two 772s or a 744/748 vs. two 767s is more realistic. I find it odd US Airlines dont buy A380s/748s to replace the 777 on routes like JFK-FRA or JFK-LHR. The 757 is a rare breed on transatlantic (thankfully, as my 757 experiences to the US are worst by far of all transatlantic flights) and will increasingly be so.

Quoting gingersnap (Reply 17):
Agreed. I too am not a good one for a long flight onboard a narrowbody.

Agreed, narrowbodies arent for longhaul.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9701 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2224 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 10):
Quoting david_itl (Reply 9):
Which is true if we ignore Open Skies; and delving back some years, BA did use them from BHX and GLA then we had ZB, AE and DP doing charters to Orlando.

True, but both Open Skies and the charters are different propositions from the AA, CO, US flights. I didn't know that BA had flown 757s across the Atlantic. Still...

Don't forget Icelandair! They were the pioneer of 757 transatlantic route networks (unless we count TWA in the 90s).



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2220 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 19):
Don't forget Icelandair!

Thats what I flew once on the LUX-JFK route in the 90s. Apart from the "exotic" stopover at Keflavik it was the most uncomfortable longhaul flight I ever had. I wont recommend it unless someone wants to see a glimpse of the island for an hour.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Cost Comparison - 2x 757 V 1x 777 TransAtlantic?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
757 767 777 Doors posted Mon Apr 22 2002 08:02:50 by Aq737
What Part Of An 777 Is 757/767 Related? posted Fri May 7 2010 22:03:40 by 747400sp
Fuel Cost For A Transatlantic Flight. posted Sat Jul 12 2008 17:38:02 by Acheron
Comparison Of Various Engine Types On The B-777 posted Sun Dec 23 2007 11:59:32 by AT
Cost Of Blended Winglet Installation On 757-200 posted Sat Feb 24 2007 09:04:27 by MD11Fanatic
Boeing 757 Transatlantic Westbound Ops posted Sat Jan 27 2007 08:36:23 by LAXspotter
777-200/300 Gear Photos - Comparison posted Tue Jan 23 2007 00:38:25 by FlyLKU
757 Engine Thrust Comparison. posted Thu Oct 19 2006 05:09:36 by BOE773
Can A 777/767/757 Fly Only On One Engine? posted Wed Mar 1 2006 07:43:52 by Swank300
757 Etops Cost posted Wed Aug 3 2005 11:25:38 by Jc2354

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format