Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Fixinthe757 wrote:why would you ever want to derate a 777??? They have the power for a reason. Wouldnt be worth it to build it if someone were to do that
UA857 wrote:Since ULH is a niche market
UA857 wrote:would a de-rated 778 do better?
UA857 wrote:Sure it would have less CASM then a 779.
UA857 wrote:But would a de-rated 778 serve as a 1:1 77W replacement on routes requiring capacity?
Fixinthe757 wrote:why would you ever want to derate a 777???
cledaybuck wrote:I am having a hard time figuring out why you would take away the one advantage this plane has over others and expect it to do better?
UA857 wrote:The 777-9 is enough for replacing 77W. It's only a slight stretch that shouldn't really matter.But would a de-rated 778 serve as a 1:1 77W replacement on routes requiring capacity?
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:cledaybuck wrote:I am having a hard time figuring out why you would take away the one advantage this plane has over others and expect it to do better?
There wouldn’t be an advantage. A derated 777-8 is going to cost almost the same to build as a full weight 777-9. It isn’t worth saving a few percent off the purchase price to be handicapped with an airplane that has less payload and capacity. A 777-8 could work well for heavy freight or ultra long haul passenger flights, otherwise the larger 777-9 which costs about the same price to build is going to be the preferred choice.
There is a reason why the smaller versions of airplanes aren’t selling as well as their bigger derivatives. The price to build a plane nowadays isn’t really driven by capacity. Maximum range isn’t nearly as critical given how much more efficient planes are with more than ample range. A longer fuselage doesn’t cost that much more to build. The engines, wing, avionics, systems components, etc cost the same regardless of how long the airplane is. That means the purchase price is going to be very similar, however the potential revenue that the larger plane can generate is far higher. Whether it is the A319, 737-7, A338, 787-8, or 777-8, unless there is a compelling reason why higher payload is needed vs more seats, the larger airplane usually wins the sale. Saving 2-5% up front on the sales price isn’t worth the 10-15% reduction in capacity over the life of the airplane.
Another final factor is lessors hate the small derivatives and derated airplanes. They are hard to remarked once an airline retires them. Unless an airline has unlimited access to capital and can finance an airplane themselves, the banks and lessors don’t want the risk of having a derated widebody orphan that will be scrapped well before the typical 20-35 year life they expect out of a new airplane.
Fixinthe757 wrote:why would you ever want to derate a 777??? They have the power for a reason. Wouldnt be worth it to build it if someone were to do that
hongkongflyer wrote:Weatherwatcher1 wrote:cledaybuck wrote:I am having a hard time figuring out why you would take away the one advantage this plane has over others and expect it to do better?
There wouldn’t be an advantage. A derated 777-8 is going to cost almost the same to build as a full weight 777-9. It isn’t worth saving a few percent off the purchase price to be handicapped with an airplane that has less payload and capacity. A 777-8 could work well for heavy freight or ultra long haul passenger flights, otherwise the larger 777-9 which costs about the same price to build is going to be the preferred choice.
There is a reason why the smaller versions of airplanes aren’t selling as well as their bigger derivatives. The price to build a plane nowadays isn’t really driven by capacity. Maximum range isn’t nearly as critical given how much more efficient planes are with more than ample range. A longer fuselage doesn’t cost that much more to build. The engines, wing, avionics, systems components, etc cost the same regardless of how long the airplane is. That means the purchase price is going to be very similar, however the potential revenue that the larger plane can generate is far higher. Whether it is the A319, 737-7, A338, 787-8, or 777-8, unless there is a compelling reason why higher payload is needed vs more seats, the larger airplane usually wins the sale. Saving 2-5% up front on the sales price isn’t worth the 10-15% reduction in capacity over the life of the airplane.
Another final factor is lessors hate the small derivatives and derated airplanes. They are hard to remarked once an airline retires them. Unless an airline has unlimited access to capital and can finance an airplane themselves, the banks and lessors don’t want the risk of having a derated widebody orphan that will be scrapped well before the typical 20-35 year life they expect out of a new airplane.
The advantages of de-rate a plane when you don't need the excess capabilities of the plane:
For airlines:
1) lower maintenance costs due to lower wear and tear
2) lower airport and route fees which based on the paper weight of the plane
3) saving in crew training and scheduling flexibilities; maintenance; spares as basically they are same with the remaining normal fleets instead of adding another models
4) can always re-rated to 100% when market changed (instead of buying other models which may not be able to handle the more demanding missions)
For manufacturer:
1) no additional costs to offer such planes, increased business opportunities
2) airlines need to pay for de-rate and re-rate i.e. additional revenue with basically no additional costs
For lessors, the costs are probably already factored in into the monthly rent and the planes can be easily re-rated and marketed as a normal one.
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:hongkongflyer wrote:Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
There wouldn’t be an advantage. A derated 777-8 is going to cost almost the same to build as a full weight 777-9. It isn’t worth saving a few percent off the purchase price to be handicapped with an airplane that has less payload and capacity. A 777-8 could work well for heavy freight or ultra long haul passenger flights, otherwise the larger 777-9 which costs about the same price to build is going to be the preferred choice.
There is a reason why the smaller versions of airplanes aren’t selling as well as their bigger derivatives. The price to build a plane nowadays isn’t really driven by capacity. Maximum range isn’t nearly as critical given how much more efficient planes are with more than ample range. A longer fuselage doesn’t cost that much more to build. The engines, wing, avionics, systems components, etc cost the same regardless of how long the airplane is. That means the purchase price is going to be very similar, however the potential revenue that the larger plane can generate is far higher. Whether it is the A319, 737-7, A338, 787-8, or 777-8, unless there is a compelling reason why higher payload is needed vs more seats, the larger airplane usually wins the sale. Saving 2-5% up front on the sales price isn’t worth the 10-15% reduction in capacity over the life of the airplane.
Another final factor is lessors hate the small derivatives and derated airplanes. They are hard to remarked once an airline retires them. Unless an airline has unlimited access to capital and can finance an airplane themselves, the banks and lessors don’t want the risk of having a derated widebody orphan that will be scrapped well before the typical 20-35 year life they expect out of a new airplane.
The advantages of de-rate a plane when you don't need the excess capabilities of the plane:
For airlines:
1) lower maintenance costs due to lower wear and tear
2) lower airport and route fees which based on the paper weight of the plane
3) saving in crew training and scheduling flexibilities; maintenance; spares as basically they are same with the remaining normal fleets instead of adding another models
4) can always re-rated to 100% when market changed (instead of buying other models which may not be able to handle the more demanding missions)
For manufacturer:
1) no additional costs to offer such planes, increased business opportunities
2) airlines need to pay for de-rate and re-rate i.e. additional revenue with basically no additional costs
For lessors, the costs are probably already factored in into the monthly rent and the planes can be easily re-rated and marketed as a normal one.
Everything you say is true, but I ask what the point of a derated 777-8 is versus a 787-10. A 787-10 is a lot cheaper. The 777-8 has more seats than a 787-10, but if seating capacity is important, then why would the airline not just go for a 777-9?