Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Without the numbers in front of me, I can not be sure, but it seems the 747-400 is around 30% more expensive per RSM than the 777-200. The 777-300 is the answer for what Delta needs, but those require Cap Ex.

Back when we ran the merger numbers it was obvious which airplanes would go away in which order. The surprise has been that the strength of our network supported them as long as they did.

While NRT is not being talked about much, I'm sure that mess tanked the justification for keeping the 747's on the short term.

It would take digging into the cargo numbers to figure out if the 747 is a keeper. (It would seem Japan needs a Berlin Airlift, but that has not materialized)

In really crazy coincidences which mean nothing, Virgin has a dozen 747-400's. Now that BA/AA is tied up and Virgin's got the "Office of Fair Trading" up their butt, they need friends sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

Once they get 5,280 feet they'll go ahead and move on over to 5,320 feet. Then they'll claim if we don't give more than a mile we'll all lose big, ALPA echoes it and so they then get an MOU signed that allows it to be moved to 6,000 feet as long as we give up something else.

Originally Posted by trlaketige

One of the problems with the supposed cost of the 400, is FPS 2.0. Every flight on the 747 lands with approximately 5,000-10,000 lbs. more fuel than the flight plan allotted. Dispatch has run numerous dual flight plans using FPS 2.0 and Worldflight, side by side. They still can't pinpoint where the problem is. Worldflight is much more accurate for the 400 on fuel planning as well as being much faster and more flexible with route planning. My fear is that the costs on the aircraft are artificially inflated making things look worse than they are.

Also, the 747/777 are top of the heap aircraft. Parking them sucks for all. Poop rolls down hill

Jim

Originally Posted by sailingfun

No reductions are planned for pilot staffing on the 747.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

No reductions are planned for pilot staffing on the 747.

Originally Posted by Rhino Driver

No. The company just states that their interpretation of a mile is a nautical mile and not a statute mile. Then our lawyers run around determining the definition of a nautical mile and low and behold, they determine that the company is correct. Now sign this MOU for some crappy protection that isn't worth the paper it's written on. All these lawyers in the "aviation industry" and somehow, we went for the statute mile interpretation over the nautical mile!

Originally Posted by trlaketige

What are your feelings on the main point of my post?

Jim

Originally Posted by bluejuice71

That dude is a Rhodes Scholar with a doctorate of philosophy in politics. Knows what she's talking about.

Originally Posted by trlaketige

One of the problems with the supposed cost of the 400, is FPS 2.0. Every flight on the 747 lands with approximately 5,000-10,000 lbs. more fuel than the flight plan allotted. Dispatch has run numerous dual flight plans using FPS 2.0 and Worldflight, side by side. They still can't pinpoint where the problem is. Worldflight is much more accurate for the 400 on fuel planning as well as being much faster and more flexible with route planning. My fear is that the costs on the aircraft are artificially inflated making things look worse than they are.

Also, the 747/777 are top of the heap aircraft. Parking them sucks for all. Poop rolls down hill

Jim