KennyK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 300 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 424 times:
A bit of a mouthfull for a topic but my thoughts are what will the result of high fuel prices have on the size of aircraft that airlines buy. The general rule is the larger the aircraft the less fuel per seal that is burned. With oil at around $100 a barrel and the likelihood that it will stay around that level for the forseable future airlines are going to be paying more attention to this element of their costs.
I would expect orders for the long derivatives i.e. Boeing 739, 773, 789 and Airbus A321, A333 to increase. For the narrowbodies this has certainly not happened with some 783 737/8s ordered as opposed to only 67 739s last year and 874 A318/9/20s ordered as opposed to only 40 A321s.
On the widebody side the 773 bucks the trend with 97 versus 20 772 orders (ignoring 77F), whilst there were 85 A332 (ignoring A332F) versus 47 A333 orders. Looking at the next generation of widebodies Boeing clocked up 288 B788 versus 81 B789 orders and Airbus had 111 A358, 139 A359 and 40 A351 orders.
The effects of high fuel costs have certainly changed the market for rergionals, turboprops are back with record orders for DHC8-400 and ATR and regional jet orders are less.
Vietnam has recently ordered 20 A321 and 10 A359, Thai 20 A321 (and 18 B787 models unknown). There is certainly much debate on an upcoming B781. And the possibility of a A389 and longer DHC8.
So will we see a change to longer more eficient derivatives?
2175301 From United States, joined May 2007, 495 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 352 times:
I think the result will have less to do with "big" planes than it will be a better matching of plane size to routes to achieve very high fill factors.
In some cases this would mean fewer flights - but with larger planes.
A recent example where this may be in play - being discussed in another thread (with in my opinion many of the wrong connotations) is the restructuring of flights by Midwest Airline. For example: Green Bay - Milwaukee service is being transitioned from turbo props to a larger jet; but with fewer flights each day. I believe that fuel cost has a lot to do with that move (and also crew cost as well).
In other cases it may mean a smaller plane on a route that consistently does not have truly great fill factors.
SEPilot From United States, joined Dec 2006, 3155 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 310 times:
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 1): I think the result will have less to do with "big" planes than it will be a better matching of plane size to routes to achieve very high fill factors.
The most economical plane to fly on any route is one that is full. Airlines will be working to achieve this on as many routes as possible.
Quoting KennyK (Thread starter): On the widebody side the 773 bucks the trend with 97 versus 20 772 orders (ignoring 77F), whilst there were 85 A332 (ignoring A332F) versus 47 A333 orders. Looking at the next generation of widebodies Boeing clocked up 288 B788 versus 81 B789 orders and Airbus had 111 A358, 139 A359 and 40 A351 orders.
I think what you are seeing here is the tradeoff in efficiency between the A330 and 777 at work. The A330 excels in the shorter range market, while the 777 is superior on longer range missions. I suspect that the economics of flying very long routes works against smaller planes, making it better to fly large planes that may not always be full but offer much better return when they are, which is why the 77W is selling so much better than the 77L or the 772ER. On shorter routes the need to keep the plane full appears to be paramount.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 300 posts, 
From United States, joined May 2007, 495 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
