Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:46 pm

It seems that since the 764ER only sold to two carriers (despite being designed as a niche aircraft for both customers), many assume the 764ER must have a high CASM. That is totally false; the 764ER has a very low CASM, lower than both the 763ER and A332. CASM was NOT the reason why the A332 outsold it, the main reasons were the A332's greater range and cargo capacity.

In fact, to me, it would seem very counterintuitive to think the A332 would have a lower CASM than a 764ER when operating within the 764ERs range. Generally, aircraft stretches naturally have a lower CASM than aicraft shrinks. The 764ER is a 763ER stretch (which in turn was stretced from the 762), while the A332 is an A333 shrink. If the A332 really did have a lower CASM, then DL would probably sign a deal with Airbus to trade in their 764ERs for more A332s. The 764ER operates flawlessly for DL on the routes that it serves, while the A332s are mostly used on longer routes outside the 764ER's range.

Another example to bring up would be the 753, which wasn't a huge seller. Does that mean it had a high CASM? Of course not! The 753 has a lower CASM than any other narrowbody. The reasons why the 753 wasn't a big seller were due to its lack of range and slow turnaround times.

So, why do so many people think the 764ER has a high CASM?
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24269
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:16 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
So, why do so many people think the 764ER has a high CASM?

Who is many people?

I've never heard the model referred to as a high CASM. The 762 is, but not the 764.

Remember 764 was focused as a DC-10 / L-1011 replacement so it had to have compelling economics to replace those cattle cars.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:36 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1):
Who is many people?

I've never heard the model referred to as a high CASM. The 762 is, but not the 764.

Remember 764 was focused as a DC-10 / L-1011 replacement so it had to have compelling economics to replace those cattle cars.

Whenever I talk about the low CASM of the 764ER, it seems that I am often questioned about it due to the fact that it sold to only two airlines.
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2654
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:55 pm

Doesn't really matter what the CASM for that ugly duckling is, now does it? Fact is it was weighed and found to be light by all but two airlines in this world. That alone tells you all you need to know about the commercial viability of the 767-400, regardless of what the CASM numbers said. Which just goes to prove that, despite what very many Anetters would like to believe, CASM is very far from being the end-all and be-all of commercial aviation - it's just one more in a long line of parameters to take into account.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:03 pm

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 3):
Doesn't really matter what the CASM for that ugly duckling is, now does it? Fact is it was weighed and found to be light by all but two airlines in this world. That alone tells you all you need to know about the commercial viability of the 767-400, regardless of what the CASM numbers said. Which just goes to prove that, despite what very many Anetters would like to believe, CASM is very far from being the end-all and be-all of commercial aviation - it's just one more in a long line of parameters to take into account.

Exactly as I said, most airlines chose the A332 for its cargo capacity and range advantage, not because it has a lower CASM than the 764ER. After all, the primary mission of the 764ER was to meet the widebody trijet replacement needs of DL and CO. Competing with the A332 was a far less important mission for the 764ER.

[Edited 2011-02-26 15:07:11]
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:20 am

Low CASM is worthless if the plane doesn't do what is needed, and that usually means range. Most airlines like to have as few types as possible, so buying one plane that has great CASM but cannot handle all routes and having to have another the same size for those won't wash. Also, the added cargo capacity of the A332 helps make up for the better CASM of the 764.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:07 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
Exactly as I said, most airlines chose the A332 for its cargo capacity and range advantage, not because it has a lower CASM than the 764ER.

That also makes the A332 much more flexible for use on a wider variety of routes than the 764.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:11 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
Low CASM is worthless if the plane doesn't do what is needed, and that usually means range. Most airlines like to have as few types as possible, so buying one plane that has great CASM but cannot handle all routes and having to have another the same size for those won't wash. Also, the added cargo capacity of the A332 helps make up for the better CASM of the 764.

In DL's case, the A332's added cargo capacity seems to be a non-issue for DL's routes to western Europe, and the routes served by the 764ER are among DL's most profitable. Also, keep in mind that DL has configured their 764ERs with a larger BusinessElite cabin than the A332, thus further adding to the profitability of using the 764ER over the A332 on routes that the 764ER is well capable of.

In addition, availabilty of gates at ATL that can fit an A332 is limited since only Concourse E has such gates. Very frequently during peak hours DL has international 767 departures from other concourses (usually Concourse T but sometimes even Concourse A). Concourse F will help relieve this a bit, however, I still don't expect that Concourses E and F alone will have the gate availabilty to handle all of DL's international departures.
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:37 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
CASM was NOT the reason why the A332 outsold it, the main reasons were the A332's greater range and cargo capacity

You speak of CASM as if it were some intrinsic property of the aircraft. It isn't, since operating cost per seat mile depends on stage length. To compare CASM apples to apples you need the same mission and similar interior product. For longer missions, it's not just that the 332 has "more range". It simply has lower CASM for those missions.
 
Daleaholic
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:20 pm

Hate to sound like a complete and utter fool, but what does CASM stand for/mean?  
Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:37 pm

Quoting Daleaholic (Reply 9):
Hate to sound like a complete and utter fool, but what does CASM stand for/mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Available_seat_miles
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:17 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 8):
To compare CASM apples to apples you need the same mission and similar interior product.

And as I said, the 764ER will have a lower CASM than the A332 on routes within the 764ER's range. A 764ER weighs significantly less than an A332 despite carrying a similar number of passengers. DL mostly flies the 764ER to western Europe (JFK-SVO being an exception), while the A332 is mostly used on longer routes.

[Edited 2011-02-28 10:18:42]
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:25 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 11):
And as I said, the 764ER will have a lower CASM than the A332 on routes within the 764ER's range.

And this makes perfect sense. A longer range plane requires more fuel capacity, which requires a much higher MTOW, which in turn requires a lot more structural strength. So on short range missions the shorter range plane will not have to carry this extra weight. But the airlines seem to have voted that the 764's range (or cargo capacity) is inadequate, and are willing to pay for the extra costs on shorter range flights. Would some of them do better with the 764? Perhaps, but their managements don't seem to think so.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:45 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
And this makes perfect sense. A longer range plane requires more fuel capacity, which requires a much higher MTOW, which in turn requires a lot more structural strength. So on short range missions the shorter range plane will not have to carry this extra weight. But the airlines seem to have voted that the 764's range (or cargo capacity) is inadequate, and are willing to pay for the extra costs on shorter range flights. Would some of them do better with the 764? Perhaps, but their managements don't seem to think so.

Well, Boeing could have easily told DL and CO to "suck it up and order more 777s" to replace their aging widebody trijets, thus making both loyal Boeing customers fleeing to Airbus. Both DL and CO thought the 777 was "too much plane" for that need, and both airlines wanted a more direct L-1011/DC-10 replacement, which only Airbus was offering at the time. The 764ER accomplished its primary mission of preventing DL and CO fleeing to Airbus. Boeing is not stupid; they would never let their best customers flee to Airbus.
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:08 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
Well, Boeing could have easily told DL and CO to "suck it up and order more 777s" to replace their aging widebody trijets, thus making both loyal Boeing customers fleeing to Airbus. Both DL and CO thought the 777 was "too much plane" for that need, and both airlines wanted a more direct L-1011/DC-10 replacement, which only Airbus was offering at the time. The 764ER accomplished its primary mission of preventing DL and CO fleeing to Airbus. Boeing is not stupid; they would never let their best customers flee to Airbus.

What I really ask myself is:

Why the heck did you even start this thread? All you have written here is clear to 97% of a.net and to comparable numbers of people in the industry.
There is no need to defend the aircraft. And there is no need to give it praise more than the number of sales reflect.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
gt1
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2001 10:30 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:42 pm

So we're all in agreement that the 764 has a low CASM, and the idea that it has a high CASM is a myth

How about these questions: Truth or myth?

1. The 764 has the correct engines? Myth

2. The 764 has enough payload capacity and MTOW? Myth

3. The 764 needed a different EFIS/EICAS system from the 1800+ 767/757 already flying. Myth
What makes this one even better is when you realize that the large display EFIS/EICAS systems in the 744, 764, 777 and 73NG are all different!!!!!

4. The 764 needed the option of a wet horizontal stab? Truth

5. The 764 needed a new main landing gear? Truth

6. The 764 needed the raked wing tips? Truth

So we've got some myths and some truths, but of the 6 questions, Boeing (with Delta's help) only got 2 correct.

But let's continue:

The 764 should have been much more capable? Truth

Had the 764 been more capable it would have sold better? Truth

Less than 40 units sold speaks for itself? Truth

And finally:
A-net signature for all the folks who drew up the specs for the 764: "The Delta 764, the mistake we'll all have to live with"? Ok, you got me, that's a myth........
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:22 am

Quoting gt1 (Reply 15):
4. The 764 needed the option of a wet horizontal stab? Truth

5. The 764 needed a new main landing gear? Truth

6. The 764 needed the raked wing tips? Truth

The new main gear on the 764 (18 inches taller than on the 763) and larger wheels/tires/brakes also weighs 3,000 lb. more than on the 763.

The 764 fuselage structure is also significantly different in the window area to accommodate the same oval windows as used on the 777.

Good description of the 764 changes in this Boeing document.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...zine/aero_03/textonly/ps01txt.html
 
wn700driver
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 10:55 pm

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:11 am

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 3):
CASM is very far from being the end-all and be-all of commercial aviation - it's just one more in a long line of parameters to take into account.

Seriously! Add to that the fact that this all mighty CASM flies right out the window the second a ground delay, holding pattern, or alternate landing comes into play as well. As long as one design isn't horribly out of step with everything else on the market, this is a total irrelevancy.
Base not your happiness on the deeds of others, for what is given can be taken away. No Hope = No Fear
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:29 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
That is totally false; the 764ER has a very low CASM, lower than both the 763ER and A332.
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 2):
Whenever I talk about the low CASM of the 764ER,
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
not because it has a lower CASM than the 764ER.
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 11):
And as I said, the 764ER will have a lower CASM than the A332 on routes within the 764ER's range.

Well, in the spirit of discussion - and since you bring up this point ad nauseam, what ARE the actual CASM numbers of the DL 764 and A332??  
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:17 pm

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 18):
Well, in the spirit of discussion - and since you bring up this point ad nauseam, what ARE the actual CASM numbers of the DL 764 and A332??

I don't know exact numbers, however, it has been stated by DL that the 764ER has a lower trip cost than an A332 on the same route.
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:43 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 19):
I don't know exact numbers, however, it has been stated by DL that the 764ER has a lower trip cost than an A332 on the same route.

   trip cost is not at all the same thing as CASM.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:50 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 20):
trip cost is not at all the same thing as CASM.

But CASM is a major factor in calculating trip cost.
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:18 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 21):
But CASM is a major factor in calculating trip cost.

Other direction...trip cost is a major factor in calculating CASM. Trip cost is an input to CASM, not an output from it.

Tom.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:31 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 22):
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 21):
But CASM is a major factor in calculating trip cost.

Other direction...trip cost is a major factor in calculating CASM. Trip cost is an input to CASM, not an output from it.

Tom.

Thanks Tom.

I think this entire thread is a contrived excuse to (again) say how great the 764 is despite terrible sales performance. I have never thought the 764 had high CASM, nor do I recollect that being a major or well-regarded agrument here or elsewhere. I don't think the 764's dismal sales performence was due to high costs, but rather due to relatively unimpressive capabilities compared to other available aircraft.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:25 am

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 23):
I think this entire thread is a contrived excuse to (again) say how great the 764 is despite terrible sales performance. I have never thought the 764 had high CASM, nor do I recollect that being a major or well-regarded agrument here or elsewhere. I don't think the 764's dismal sales performence was due to high costs, but rather due to relatively unimpressive capabilities compared to other available aircraft.

But the 764ER accomplished its primary mission of keeping DL and CO onboard. Competing with the A332 was only an afterthought. Had Boeing not offered the 764ER, DL and CO would have probably fled to Airbus to replace their L-1011 and DC-10 fleets, respectively. DL and CO wanted a near-exact replacement for those widebody trijets in terms of size, with no exceptions or leeway whatsoever, and the A332 was the only option available, so Boeing gave them the 764ER.
Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:50 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 19):
I don't know exact numbers, however, it has been stated by DL that the 764ER has a lower trip cost than an A332 on the same route.

Of course, it bears mentioning that the A332 can fly lots of routes that the 764 cannot. Or fly the same routes stuffed full of cargo.

The delta in trip fuel burn between the 764 and the A332 on similar missions is far overshadowed by the additional capabilities that the A332 brings to the table. So say the world's airlines  
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Topic Author
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:13 am

Quoting brons2 (Reply 25):
Of course, it bears mentioning that the A332 can fly lots of routes that the 764 cannot. Or fly the same routes stuffed full of cargo.

The delta in trip fuel burn between the 764 and the A332 on similar missions is far overshadowed by the additional capabilities that the A332 brings to the table. So say the world's airlines

But this doesn't make the 764ER a worthless asset in the Delta fleet, otherwise DL would probably trade in their 764ERs for more A332s. The 764ER is particularly useful out of ATL since it can use Concourses T and A in addition to Concourse E, while the A332 can only use Concourse E. International 767 departures from concourses other than E are very common nowadays, usually in Concourse T but sometimes in Concourse A.

Also keep in mind that DL flies the 764ER to some of the most lucrative European destinations, and cargo capacity has never been an issue on tthose routes. Everyone should know that Delta's requirements are not the same as other airlines.

Here are other signs that DL seems happier with the 764ER than the A332:
  • DL has painted three 764ERs in special liveries (N841MH American Cancer Society, N844MH SkyTeam, and N845MH Pink Breast Cancer Awareness aka the most beautiful aircraft/livery combination in the world). DL had the chance to paint some A332s in special liveries, but chose not to (otherwise we would have seen an A332 wearing the pink livery instead of a 764ER).
  • DL has prioritized the interior upgrades of the 764ER before the A332 (and A330 in general) by getting them all in flat-bed BusinessElite configuration by this summer, while the A330 fleet will be done by 2013 after the 763ERs are done. The 764ER already has a better Y cabin than the A332 due to the newer IFE system.
  • Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
     
    brons2
    Posts: 2480
    Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:36 am

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    But this doesn't make the 764ER a worthless asset in the Delta fleet

    Relax, nobody's saying that. They are capable L1011-500 replacements, which is what they were meant to be in the beginning. You also rightly point out that they will fit into gates that the A332 won't. Delta is already the world's largest 767 operator, so the 764 is a natural extension to their fleet.
    Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
     
    Transpac787
    Posts: 1405
    Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:21 am

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    Here are other signs that DL seems happier with the 764ER than the A332:

          Are you for real?? I mean, seriously??

    To actually try to draw a direct correlation from schedule of painting to a quantified "happiness" with a fleet type?? *facepalm*

    And to suggest the 764's were retrofitted first because DL prefers the fleet?? Yes, I believe this is the only reasonable assumption to explain the 'why'!! Of course, it had absolutely nothing to do with opportunistic timing from converting the domestic 764's to international cabins. Even though it just so happens the ONLY lie-flat configured 764's are all ex-domestic birds, that's just a simple coincidence which we should all swiftly dismiss.
     
    Transpac787
    Posts: 1405
    Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:32 am

    Having got caught up in my last reply, I'll continue with my part 2 in debunking other myths rampant in this thread...

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    Also keep in mind that DL flies the 764ER to some of the most lucrative European destinations

    Pray-tell, how do you know they are the most lucrative?? Other than conjecture or even short of that, your best guess??

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    and cargo capacity has never been an issue on tthose routes.

    I see. Do you frequent the dispatch releases and load plans?? Cargo is frequently an issue on LIM-ATL, as it was on SVO-ATL, ATL-HNL, and many others.

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    But this doesn't make the 764ER a worthless asset in the Delta fleet, otherwise DL would probably trade in their 764ERs for more A332s.

    Ahh. So they just google the Kelly Blue Book value and "trade [them] in"?? Or maybe it's not just quite *that* simple. Like how SQ does not drop their A345's in favor of 772LR's, despite the 77L being a far superior design. The colossal cost of dumping the inferior fleet far outweighs the cost gain in acquiring the superior fleet.
     
    KingAir200
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:37 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:27 am

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    Here are other signs that DL seems happier with the 764ER than the A332:

    ...really?
     
    BMI727
    Posts: 11300
    Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:14 am

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    Here are other signs that DL seems happier with the 764ER than the A332:

    I've always defended the 767-400ER as being good at what it does, but that is really reaching.
    Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
     
    skyone
    Posts: 269
    Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2001 6:38 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:56 pm

    To me, this thread is more of a "why are there more A321s in Europe and more 757s in the US". It is not that one is better than the other, it is just that every plane is design for different misions. The 764ER is a plane design for American carriers that fly to Europe, as it is well on its range from hubs like ATL, IAH, DFW and the east coast.

    With the 764ER, I can only say that CO has a good mix of 762ER and 764ER, and uses them for misions that are good for them as a US carrier that flies a lot to Europe from two hubs. Also, CO uses its fleet of 752s amazingly to Europe from its EWR hub. So with its mix of 752, 762 and 764, they can take care of US (IAH, EWR)-Europe market year round (with high and low seasons) and also have a 772 when a destination requires it, while also having an aircraft to use from the US to Asia.

    I was just reading in another thread, that Delta has 1 763 that was originally intended for CO, and we can see CO doesn´t have 763s. So it clearly says that CO saw a better fit to its fleet with 764 than 763.

    Also, the Airbus A332 and A333 are perfect aircrafts for other airlines. I just can´t imagine a Mexican Carrier using 764ER out of MEX on their MEX-Europe routes, or and A321 out of MEX for their medium and short haul. But that doesn´t make the A321 a bad aircraft, as plenty of Airlines use them in Europe.

    [Edited 2011-03-04 14:06:02]
     
    User avatar
    speedygonzales
    Posts: 663
    Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:01 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:52 pm

    I feel a bit guilty for this thread, since it appeared shortly after my comment to the thread starter that the 767-400 surely would have sold more if the operating costs really were 'fantastically low'. I never claimed operating costs were high, just low enough to make up for what deficiencies it may have. I also don't doubt that it serves its purpose well at DL and CO.

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 24):
    But the 764ER accomplished its primary mission of keeping DL and CO onboard. Competing with the A332 was only an afterthought.

    IMO, this is the real myth that needs debunking. Some time ago I searches threads from when Boeing was actively pushin the 767-400ER, and I couldn't find a single reference to this in those threads. It's main purpose was to compete better with the A330, that it was only made to keep DL and CO loyal is an excuse for its poor sales invented after further sales failed to materialize.
    Ignorance kills. :tombstone:
     
    User avatar
    SEPilot
    Posts: 5571
    Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:28 pm

    Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 33):
    IMO, this is the real myth that needs debunking. Some time ago I searches threads from when Boeing was actively pushin the 767-400ER, and I couldn't find a single reference to this in those threads. It's main purpose was to compete better with the A330, that it was only made to keep DL and CO loyal is an excuse for its poor sales invented after further sales failed to materialize.

    I would agree with you. I fully believe that Boeing expected to sell a lot more than they did; and while I think that the primary motive was to keep DL and CO happy, if they had known at the start that those would be the only ones they would sell I doubt that they would have built it. But ultimately I don't think it was all that bad a decision, precisely because it probably did keep DL and CO from buying the A330, and then other Airbus planes.
    The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
     
    maddogjt8d
    Posts: 215
    Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:37 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:10 pm

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    Here are other signs that DL seems happier with the 764ER than the A332:

    This thread has become ridiculous! The only myth about 764 CASM is in your head. 1337Delta764, you need to grow up...
     
    User avatar
    1337Delta764
    Topic Author
    Posts: 5831
    Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:55 pm

    Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 28):
    Even though it just so happens the ONLY lie-flat configured 764's are all ex-domestic birds, that's just a simple coincidence which we should all swiftly dismiss.
    Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 33):
    IMO, this is the real myth that needs debunking. Some time ago I searches threads from when Boeing was actively pushin the 767-400ER, and I couldn't find a single reference to this in those threads. It's main purpose was to compete better with the A330, that it was only made to keep DL and CO loyal is an excuse for its poor sales invented after further sales failed to materialize.

    This marketing was done AFTER DL and CO ordered the model. Basically, you are saying that Boeing would have been better off screwing two of their most important customers, leading to them ordering A330s. Whoever says that the main purpose of the 764ER was competing with the A330 knows that they are lying to themselves.
    Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
     
    jetblast
    Posts: 950
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:19 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:20 pm

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 36):
    This marketing was done AFTER DL and CO ordered the model. Basically, you are saying that Boeing would have been better off screwing two of their most important customers, leading to them ordering A330s. Whoever says that the main purpose of the 764ER was competing with the A330 knows that they are lying to themselves.

    I think you're lying to yourself in terms of thinking you know what you're talking about, unfortunately - seeing as how you start a thread setting to debunk the 'myth' of a high CASM on the 764, but when asked for numbers, the best you can do is -

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 19):
    I don't know exact numbers, however, it has been stated by DL that the 764ER has a lower trip cost than an A332 on the same route.

    Now I am not an Airbus fanboy as denoted by your signature, but you're trying to convince the world the 764 is better because....Delta painted one in the Breast Cancer livery? That seems to be the only remotely valid argument you've drawn out in this entire discussion.

    Surely you can't be serious.
    Speedbird Concorde One
     
    User avatar
    1337Delta764
    Topic Author
    Posts: 5831
    Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:52 pm

    Quoting jetblast (Reply 37):
    I think you're lying to yourself in terms of thinking you know what you're talking about, unfortunately - seeing as how you start a thread setting to debunk the 'myth' of a high CASM on the 764, but when asked for numbers, the best you can do is -

    Tell that to Ed Bastian. Mr. Bastian confirmed himself that the 764ER was designed for DL. He would't lie about that. The myth that the sole purpose of the 764ER was to compete with the A330 should be considered punishable by law.
    Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
     
    jetblast
    Posts: 950
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:19 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:46 am

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 38):
    Tell that to Ed Bastian. Mr. Bastian confirmed himself that the 764ER was designed for DL. He would't lie about that. The myth that the sole purpose of the 764ER was to compete with the A330 should be considered punishable by law.

    How does this have anything to do with what I posted?
    Speedbird Concorde One
     
    PGNCS
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:12 pm

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    But this doesn't make the 764ER a worthless asset in the Delta fleet, otherwise DL would probably trade in their 764ERs for more A332s.

    Nobody said it was worthless. Plenty of people believe it's a poor alternative to other aircraft out there.

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    Also keep in mind that DL flies the 764ER to some of the most lucrative European destinations, and cargo capacity has never been an issue on tthose routes. Everyone should know that Delta's requirements are not the same as other airlines.

    Really? Is it never weight restricted? If DL had additional cargo capacity, they wouldn't or couldn't use it?

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    Here are other signs that DL seems happier with the 764ER than the A332:

    DL has painted three 764ERs in special liveries (N841MH American Cancer Society, N844MH SkyTeam, and N845MH Pink Breast Cancer Awareness aka the most beautiful aircraft/livery combination in the world). DL had the chance to paint some A332s in special liveries, but chose not to (otherwise we would have seen an A332 wearing the pink livery instead of a 764ER).

    DL has prioritized the interior upgrades of the 764ER before the A332 (and A330 in general) by getting them all in flat-bed BusinessElite configuration by this summer, while the A330 fleet will be done by 2013 after the 763ERs are done. The 764ER already has a better Y cabin than the A332 due to the newer IFE system.

    This is truly grasping at straws. If this is the best you have for defending the 764, the A-330 is the pretty obvious winner in this "competition." The 764 fleet was chosen for lie-flat seats because those aircraft were going to be serving LHR and because their existing interiors were vastly inferior to the ones in the A-330's at the time. (Upgrade the worst first.)

    Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 28):
    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    Here are other signs that DL seems happier with the 764ER than the A332:

    Are you for real?? I mean, seriously??

    To actually try to draw a direct correlation from schedule of painting to a quantified "happiness" with a fleet type?? *facepalm*

    And to suggest the 764's were retrofitted first because DL prefers the fleet?? Yes, I believe this is the only reasonable assumption to explain the 'why'!! Of course, it had absolutely nothing to do with opportunistic timing from converting the domestic 764's to international cabins. Even though it just so happens the ONLY lie-flat configured 764's are all ex-domestic birds, that's just a simple coincidence which we should all swiftly dismiss.

      

    Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 29):
    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    But this doesn't make the 764ER a worthless asset in the Delta fleet, otherwise DL would probably trade in their 764ERs for more A332s.

    Ahh. So they just google the Kelly Blue Book value and "trade [them] in"?? Or maybe it's not just quite *that* simple. Like how SQ does not drop their A345's in favor of 772LR's, despite the 77L being a far superior design. The colossal cost of dumping the inferior fleet far outweighs the cost gain in acquiring the superior fleet.

       They are an orphan fleet and have virtually no value in the marketplace. DL would almost certainly get killed financially disposing of those things now, so they might as well operate them on routes where they perform best (which they are.) Unless they can sell them to FedEx (or CO) I can't imagine they aren't going to be in the fleet for a long time. Personally I think they'd look great at FedEx!

    Quoting KingAir200 (Reply 30):
    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
    Here are other signs that DL seems happier with the 764ER than the A332:

    ...really?
    Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 33):
    I feel a bit guilty for this thread, since it appeared shortly after my comment to the thread starter that the 767-400 surely would have sold more if the operating costs really were 'fantastically low'. I never claimed operating costs were high, just low enough to make up for what deficiencies it may have. I also don't doubt that it serves its purpose well at DL and CO.

    Don't feel bad, Speedy. This is a thread contrived to extol the virtues of the 764, and the fact that you brought up a suggestion that the 764 wasn't successful in the marketplace was not welcome news to some parties. It was an entirely relevant observation: low operating costs do not, in and of themselves, make for a successful aircraft.

    Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 33):
    IMO, this is the real myth that needs debunking. Some time ago I searches threads from when Boeing was actively pushin the 767-400ER, and I couldn't find a single reference to this in those threads. It's main purpose was to compete better with the A330, that it was only made to keep DL and CO loyal is an excuse for its poor sales invented after further sales failed to materialize.

    Well, DL certainly figured prominently in the design of the aircraft, but clearly Boeing thought the 764 was a much more viable competitor to the A-330 than it really is.

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 38):
    Quoting jetblast (Reply 37):
    I think you're lying to yourself in terms of thinking you know what you're talking about, unfortunately - seeing as how you start a thread setting to debunk the 'myth' of a high CASM on the 764, but when asked for numbers, the best you can do is -

    Tell that to Ed Bastian. Mr. Bastian confirmed himself that the 764ER was designed for DL. He would't lie about that. The myth that the sole purpose of the 764ER was to compete with the A330 should be considered punishable by law.

    The 764 was launched as part of the Ron Allen-era "all Boeing" order as a replacement for DL's L-1011 domestic routes; as such DL's needs were preeminent in design decisions.

    That Boeing promoted the aircraft as a competitor to the A-330 is beyond doubt. That Airbus ate their lunch is also beyond doubt.
     
    User avatar
    1337Delta764
    Topic Author
    Posts: 5831
    Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:33 pm

    Quoting PGNCS (Reply 40):
    This is truly grasping at straws. If this is the best you have for defending the 764, the A-330 is the pretty obvious winner in this "competition." The 764 fleet was chosen for lie-flat seats because those aircraft were going to be serving LHR and because their existing interiors were vastly inferior to the ones in the A-330's at the time. (Upgrade the worst first.)

    Actually, the Y cabin in the 764ERs is already SUPERIOR to the A330. The 764ERs have a newer IFE system (Panasonic eFX vs. 3000i on the A330), and it is a well known fact that the Boeing Signature Interior is superior to the A330 interior.

    Quoting PGNCS (Reply 40):
    That Boeing promoted the aircraft as a competitor to the A-330 is beyond doubt. That Airbus ate their lunch is also beyond doubt.

    I'm not denying that Boeing would have wanted additional orders, however, that was mostly a secondary mission for the 764ER. Anyone who believes it was the primary mission is a sworn-to-God   .
    Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
     
    PGNCS
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:55 pm

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 41):
    Quoting PGNCS (Reply 40):
    This is truly grasping at straws. If this is the best you have for defending the 764, the A-330 is the pretty obvious winner in this "competition." The 764 fleet was chosen for lie-flat seats because those aircraft were going to be serving LHR and because their existing interiors were vastly inferior to the ones in the A-330's at the time. (Upgrade the worst first.)

    Actually, the Y cabin in the 764ERs is already SUPERIOR to the A330. The 764ERs have a newer IFE system (Panasonic eFX vs. 3000i on the A330), and it is a well known fact that the Boeing Signature Interior is superior to the A330 interior.

    I've flown a lot in both, and certainly would not agree. It's a "well known fact" that the 764 interior is better? Really? A fact? If it's factual, it's not subject to opinion. With than in mind, please prove it.

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 41):
    Quoting PGNCS (Reply 40):
    That Boeing promoted the aircraft as a competitor to the A-330 is beyond doubt. That Airbus ate their lunch is also beyond doubt.

    I'm not denying that Boeing would have wanted additional orders, however, that was mostly a secondary mission for the 764ER. Anyone who believes it was the primary mission is a sworn-to-God .

    So people who believe that Boeing didn't consider the 764 as their alternative to the A-330 are all liars? We know how you feel, it's in your signature. We get it. It apparently bothers you a lot more that the 764 didn't sell more than it bothers those of us who aren't enamored with it. After all, we aren't the ones starting threads titled "764 A Huge Blunder for Boeing," or "A-330 Outsells 764 20:1!"
     
    User avatar
    1337Delta764
    Topic Author
    Posts: 5831
    Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:04 pm

    Quoting PGNCS (Reply 42):
    So people who believe that Boeing didn't consider the 764 as their alternative to the A-330 are all liars? We know how you feel, it's in your signature. We get it. It apparently bothers you a lot more that the 764 didn't sell more than it bothers those of us who aren't enamored with it. After all, we aren't the ones starting threads titled "764 A Huge Blunder for Boeing," or "A-330 Outsells 764 20:1!"

    I never said Boeing didn't consider the 764ER as an alternative to the A330. However, had DL and CO instead went with Boeing's initial suggestion to replace their widebody trijets with 777s, the 764ER would have never existed. The 777 was considered "too much plane" for those missions in the eyes of DL and CO, and the A332 was the only option available. No, Boeing didn't point guns at Ron Allen and Gordon Bethune to order 764ERs; both airlines strongly considered ordering A332s.
    Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
     
    PGNCS
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:01 pm

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 43):
    Quoting PGNCS (Reply 42):
    So people who believe that Boeing didn't consider the 764 as their alternative to the A-330 are all liars? We know how you feel, it's in your signature. We get it. It apparently bothers you a lot more that the 764 didn't sell more than it bothers those of us who aren't enamored with it. After all, we aren't the ones starting threads titled "764 A Huge Blunder for Boeing," or "A-330 Outsells 764 20:1!"

    I never said Boeing didn't consider the 764ER as an alternative to the A330. However, had DL and CO instead went with Boeing's initial suggestion to replace their widebody trijets with 777s, the 764ER would have never existed. The 777 was considered "too much plane" for those missions in the eyes of DL and CO, and the A332 was the only option available. No, Boeing didn't point guns at Ron Allen and Gordon Bethune to order 764ERs; both airlines strongly considered ordering A332s.

    And should have, at least in the case of DL.

    [Edited 2011-03-06 15:14:50]
     
    User avatar
    1337Delta764
    Topic Author
    Posts: 5831
    Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:22 am

    Quoting PGNCS (Reply 44):
    And should have, at least in the case of DL.

    Well, at the time, the L-1011s were mostly flying ATL-Florida and Hawaii routes, and thus the additional range that the A332 would have offered wouldn't have been necessary. After all, DL would have preferred an aircraft that can fit into the existing L-1011 gates at LGA, as well as those in Concourses T and A at ATL. However, as market conditions changed after 9/11, the strategy of over-reliance on domestic widebodies began to backfire on DL, and was one of the reasons putting DL into bankruptcy. DL realized they could make more money using the 764ER on international routes as CO was already doing, thus DL decided on moving them to international routes, as well as eliminating the 762s, making the 763 (non-ER) DL's sole domestic widebody aircraft.

    The fact is, the 764ER gets the job done reliably for DL and CO. Flights to western Europe are no problem for the 764ER. If you look at DL's schedules today, the A332s mostly fly longer routes. The only exception seems to be ATL-AMS, which is likely due to some slack in the A332 fleet while the 764ERs are operating other European routes/
    Real Men Wear Fairy Tale Pink IZOD Shirts and Shorts
     
    Max Q
    Posts: 8115
    Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:58 am

    The 764 was never meant to be anything but a DC10 / L1011 replacement. It has done this very well. I have flown this Aircraft since it was first delivered to us and it is, by far my favourite of all the 75/76 models.


    Delightful handling, a comfortable cockpit and perfectly good performance along with excellent passenger comfort and economy make this a little known, very underated Aircraft.



    Just because it fills a fairly narrow niche by some standards does not mean it was a failure. On the other hand I do think it was sold short by not being developed further.


    As just one example of it's economy when we first started to fly them we flew them on the same routes as our DC10's. I compared our fuel burn one night on a GIG-EWR sector with a similar load. It was 30,000 pounds less than theirs.



    This was on only one flight, multiply that out over the fleet and you have massive savings. Not to mention the lower expense of only 2 crew members and 2 engines.



    For us, it was the right Aircraft at the right time.
    The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


    GGg
     
    BMI727
    Posts: 11300
    Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:02 am

    Quoting Max Q (Reply 46):
    For us, it was the right Aircraft at the right time.

    Precisely. No other airlines need to apologize for the fact that the 764 wasn't right for them and Delta and Continental don't need to apologize for the fact that they found the 764 sufficient and others didn't.

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 45):
    The fact is, the 764ER gets the job done reliably for DL and CO. Flights to western Europe are no problem for the 764ER. If you look at DL's schedules today, the A332s mostly fly longer routes.

    Nobody is disagreeing with that. Seems to me that you are tilting at windmills.
    Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
     
    rheinwaldner
    Posts: 1856
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:27 am

    Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 41):
    well known fact

    Your well known facts seem to be accepted by a very limited audience. A personal preference makes no well known fact. Your personal preference however became well known.   But don't sell it as well known fact.

    There is a niche where the 764 is king. Nobody denies that. But the 764-kingdom is rather small and its relevance has been measured by the whole market. And that did not pan out as intended by Boeing:

    Quote:
    Boeing believes that the move could provide an additional boost to the -400's attack on the market, which it estimates is for up to 900 aircraft from 2000 onwards.

    from here:http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1998/06/10/38007/boeing-studies-extending-767-400er-range.html

    Other quotes:
    From 1999:

    Quote:
    Leasing companies General Electric Capital Aviation Services (GECAS) and International Lease Finance (ILFC) have dropped their combined orders for seven Boeing 767-400ERs after failing to find sufficient market interest in the stretched twins.
    Quote:
    Despite the model's relatively slow start, Boeing claims it is confident that sales will pick up. "Airlines continue to show interest and we are actively working several proposals," it says. Boeing predicts that a significant portion of the market for the 767-400ER will develop over the next few years in the Asia-Pacific region.

    Rhetorical question: How much is a "significant portion" of a zero market?

    (All quotes were made after DL and CO ordered their 764's)
    Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
     
    CHRISBA777ER
    Posts: 3715
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:12 pm

    RE: Debunking The 767-400ER High Casm Myth

    Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:31 pm

    Ok - you love the 764ER and you want us all to know how much you love it. Sorted.

    Ok - you love DL and you want us all to know how much you love it. Sorted.

    Ok - you love the DL 764ER and you want us all to know how much you love it. Sorted.

    Can we all move on now. I think 1337 has humiliated himself enough already. Surely one of the most bizarrely partisan excuses for a thread on here we've ever had.

    "The 764ER is better because DL painted one in a special scheme which shows they love it more than the Airbus"

    LOL deary deary me.
    What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

    Popular Searches On Airliners.net

    Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

    Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

    Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

    Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

    Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

    Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

    Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

    Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

    Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

    Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

    Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

    Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

    Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

    Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

    Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos