Okcflyer wrote:calpsafltskeds wrote:UALORD
Looking at gallons burned per seat form best to worst
Domestic: 772A/1.1, 739/1.18, 753/1.24, 738/1.25, 320/1.43, 73G/1.15, 319/1.63, 752/1.75 PS only,1.6 50/50 sCO/ps
Atlantic: 789/1.24, 77W/1.34, 788/1.34, 752/1.44, 764/1.51, 763/1.54, 772/1.62
Pacific: 738/1.25, 789/1.34, 73G/1.37, 77W/1.39, 788/1.39, 7721/1.76
Latin: 738/1.25, 739/1.26, 320/1.33, 788/1.39, 73G/1.43, 319/1.48, 752/1.47, 763/1.62, 772/1.71, 789/1.79, 77W/1.91,764/1.93
Numbers look about what would be expected with NGs outperforming Airbus. Poor 772 Intl numbers may reflect ULH operations/cargo.
These are gross numbers and don't take into account ULH may negatively affect some numbers as does WB freight hauling.
Interesting that the sCO 752 has a low fuel burn comparing to WB, but obviously doesn't carry the percentage of cargo.
- 738 is consistent across D, L, and P regions at 1.25.
- 788 is well optimized with unit costs extremely close to the 789. No wonder AA ordered additional.
With the tail harmonization and a few tweaks that Boeing did, the gap is probably closer on the newer models. That bodes pretty well for the 788 as the 763 replacement for all intensive purposes. With the 788 at 219 seats (less a few for PE) vs. current 763 at 214. As you state, it is confirming AA's choice + the inventory + crew + training already setup. I'd say it's just a matter of time when and how many.