Sponsor Message:
Travel Polls & Prefs Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is Better: More Flights Or Bigger A/c?  
User currently offlineMnevans From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 168 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

I was reading the CO 777s thread and this came to me. As a traveler who say has to do the same trip 2 times a month, would you rather have more scheduling options or a bigger a/c? I also pose the same question to airlines as well? Seems to me that CO takes the more a/c option, which I think is the better one. I would think that domestic/international route as well as length come in to play, but those being equal, what do you guys think?

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEirjet From Ireland, joined Jul 2005, 330 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4623 times:

I would choose the 'more flights' option.

Although there may be some airline(s) out there whose strategy better suits the 'bigger aircraft' school of thought.

Eirjet



Aviation has a 100% record, we've never left one up there......
User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2558 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4611 times:

That really depends on how the loads and bookings are set up. If you have a thousand people who want to fly a particular route during a given day, you have to find out when they want to fly. If they're evenly distributed throughout the day, fly several smaller aircraft. If they all want to go in the morning (or evening, etc) fly fewer but larger aircraft. These sort of trends can be figured out based on booking preferences made over the phone or website. The point for the airline is to decide what the passengers want, and then try to provide it.

There really isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to your question, since different routes have different results. Midweek LAX-SFO is mostly business travellers who probably want to go back and forth in the morning and evening. West coast to Hawaii is loaded for morning departures because most travellers are vacationers who want to get to the beach before sundown. In other words - welcome to the headache-inducing world of airline schedule planners. Big grin

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4611 times:

My preference would be for more scheduling options AND smaller aircraft. The same on both domestic (or short-haul) and international (or intercontinental) ops

User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4603 times:

I´m a strong supporter of the Big jets option.

To please just a few (mostly stressed businessmen) higher frequency with smaller a/c just means more fuel consumption and environmental pollution, more noise, higher "hardware" costs (two 787s will more than one 748I), less inflight comfort, more crews to pay for, etc., etc., and as a result higher fares. No thank you.


User currently offlineOkie73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4595 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 3):
My preference would be for more scheduling options AND smaller aircraft. The same on both domestic (or short-haul) and international (or intercontinental) ops

the problem is, depending on the airport, you can only fit some many flights into a single day. At some point, you can no longer add flights to increase capacity, you have to use bigger aircraft.


User currently offlineClipper136 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 316 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Easy Answer


For Passengers........More flights (more convenience, more options)

For Airlines..............Bigger aircraft (cost lest to operate 1 big aircraft, assuming they can fill it, than several small ones)


User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4670 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

As with everything, it's a trade-off. Where the optimum is depends on a lot of factors like HAL said.


For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17355 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4527 times:

Quoting Mnevans (Thread starter):
As a traveler who say has to do the same trip 2 times a month, would you rather have more scheduling options or a bigger a/c?

Almost always, for most passengers. Frequency just about always trumps aircraft size, both from a passenger standpoint and an airline standpoint.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4510 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NA (Reply 4):
To please just a few (mostly stressed businessmen) higher frequency with smaller a/c just means more fuel consumption and environmental pollution, more noise, higher "hardware" costs (two 787s will more than one 748I), less inflight comfort, more crews to pay for, etc., etc., and as a result higher fares. No thank you.

 checkmark 

The trend should be towards bigger planes, fewer trips. The skies are already crowded, fuel costs and crew costs will continue to rise, and if we're ever going to do anything to curb emissions, this is almost a no-brainer. The A380's day will come.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4505 times:

Quoting Clipper136 (Reply 6):
For Passengers........More flights (more convenience, more options)

For those passengers, who drive big gas-guzzlingSUVs, live in AC-equipped houses and who give a hell for whats happening to mother earth and their own grandchildren, and who don´t care for the dozens of millions living near airports.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17355 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4484 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 9):
The trend should be towards bigger planes, fewer trips. The skies are already crowded, fuel costs and crew costs will continue to rise, and if we're ever going to do anything to curb emissions, this is almost a no-brainer. The A380's day will come.

Don't hold your breath Silly



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineNWA757boy From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 676 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4467 times:

You want frequency? you get 10 ERJs/CRJs/daily going from point A to point B. You want a bigger A/C, you get a DC10/ 767 once or twice a day between point A and point B. The choice is yours, and yours alone Wink

And apparently the public wants frequency because you see more regional jets doing point A to point B with more frequencies than you see a widebody doing point A to point B with maybe one or two dailies. but that is all my 2cents.


User currently offline777DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4457 times:

2 smaller planes may be more profitable if they can carry a combined total of more cargo

User currently offlineKevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1165 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 9):
The trend should be towards bigger planes, fewer trips. The skies are already crowded, fuel costs and crew costs will continue to rise, and if we're ever going to do anything to curb emissions, this is almost a no-brainer. The A380's day will come.

What exactly do you build this on?? Firstly, skies aren't at capacity in most places yet, same goes for most airports by far. Per pax fuel costs and crew costs do decrease with the size of airplane, but only very modestly - pilots stay two, but crew has to be at least 1 per 50 seats on the plane anyway. Add to this that big ac require larger turnaround times and thus higher costs eventually in this sense. All this besides that large ac often can't even be filled on many routes once daily.

Look at Asia - large aircraft on short routes has been the rule there for years (look at SQ using 777 on SIN-KUL!) - but if costs are so much lower with larger ac, why isn't AirAsia flying the 330?

I think there is an interesting discussion here, but the "right" answer is hardly a "no-brainer"...  Smile

Kevin777



"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-HAM-CPH CR9
User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4364 times:

I prefer the option of more flights.

User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

I would say as a passenger, more flights, for the convenience factor, but from an airline [logistics] point of view, bigger aircraft and economisation of slots suits better.

User currently offlineGBan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4329 times:

Quoting Clipper136 (Reply 6):
Easy Answer


For Passengers........More flights (more convenience, more options)

Not necessarily. I don't have much choice when to fly anyway: its in the morning, the evening, preferably over night for intercontinental trips. I very much prefer to be on larger aircraft.

Quoting Kevin777 (Reply 14):
I think there is an interesting discussion here, but the "right" answer is hardly a "no-brainer"...

Kevin777

Exactly.


User currently offlineKevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1165 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4324 times:

Quoting GBan (Reply 17):
I very much prefer to be on larger aircraft.

Me too.... Looking forward to T7s on Danish domestic some day..!  Wink

Kevin777



"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-HAM-CPH CR9
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5398 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

Quoting GBan (Reply 17):
Not necessarily. I don't have much choice when to fly anyway: its in the morning, the evening, preferably over night for intercontinental trips. I very much prefer to be on larger aircraft.

Yes, this is always my argument when discussing all the LGA/DCA shuttles leaving every hour. They rarely leave on time, the airports are almost at capacity because of it, and whether I leave the office at 3:45pm or 4:45pm it's insignificant.
The 'hourly' flights to BOS are all very good from a marketing perspective, but come to DCA and you'll see some business travellers arriving 3hrs before their flight, and others 30 mins, some flights 15mins late, and others 50mins late. The turnaround time is minimal, so any type of delay on the inbound flight means a delay on the outbound.

Hey .... give me a 8:00pm flight on a B767, giving it a longer turnaround time, and maybe guarantee me better on-time service (and maybe cheaper fares), and I'll take it over those other 4 smaller flights anyday.

....and I'm one of those 'business travellers' that is supposed to be in awe of these hourly shuttles!

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 10):
For those passengers, who drive big gas-guzzlingSUVs, live in AC-equipped houses and who give a hell for whats happening to mother earth and their own grandchildren, and who don´t care for the dozens of millions living near airports.

That's a ludicrous, political statement. Passengers everywhere will tend to favor more flexibility in flight times. Most passengers have no idea what type of aircraft they will be flying on, much less what the relative fuel efficiency of that aircraft might be. sarcastic 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4210 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 20):
That's a ludicrous, political statement. Passengers everywhere will tend to favor more flexibility in flight times. Most passengers have no idea what type of aircraft they will be flying on

Ouch.... did I step on your feet? Of cause passengers would want flexibility out of laziness and because many are used to ever-growing comfort (to be drastic high frequency means hourly flights to every spot in the end), but they need to be teached that this comes with bad side-effects as I said before. Yes, my statement is a bit political, its meant that way, because our planet needs to think where to save the atmosphere from collapsing. That the world´s leading power is so reckless in environmental politics is a disgrace for your great country.

Higher and higher frequency is bare nonsense, that way the airline business will give a bad example to the world and open its doors wide to rightful critisism from green parties and responsible thinkers everywhere. Not long until a VAT will be added to kerosene fuel, and higher fares are the unwelcome first outcome.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4190 times:

It depends on what you mean by "better." The number one reason for choosing a flight is schedule. Price is not far behind but definitely second. The public demands frequency, which means smaller planes.

From an efficiency and public infrastructure standpoint fewer flight with larger planes is "better." Larger planes burn less fuel per passenger and overall would leave lower pollution, less noise and fewer delays.

With deregulation, demand will win. In some cases regulation will have to step in or everything will fall apart which is why informal or formal slot restrictions are currently necessary at ORD and LGA. There would not be a problem if only mainline planes flew into those airports. They are clogged with RJs.

What will force airlines back to larger planes will be continued crowding at major airports causing slot restrictions, higher fuel prices which would force ticket prices on RJs high enough to override the schedule priority and airline consolidation which would reduce overlapping flights and move then to larger aircraft.

Personally, I hate flying in RJs. I wish every flight was a 767.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 21):
Ouch.... did I step on your feet?

 talktothehand  Nope. I'm as committed a tree-hugger as you'll ever find, but I recognize condescension and stupidity when I read it.

Quoting NA (Reply 21):
Of cause passengers would want flexibility out of laziness

A businessman who desires to schedule his time effectively is "lazy"? A common man who wishes to make a connecting flight without wasting his vacation time is "lazy"?

Quoting NA (Reply 21):
Higher and higher frequency is bare nonsense, that way the airline business will give a bad example to the world and open its doors wide to rightful critisism from green parties and responsible thinkers everywhere. Not long until a VAT will be added to kerosene fuel, and higher fares are the unwelcome first outcome.

If we take this thinking to the logical conclusion, I suppose you would favor eliminating air travel altogether. If higher frequency is bad, then the best possible case would be a frequency of zero. smile 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineHB88 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 814 posts, RR: 31
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4142 times:

If you could answer this question, you'd silence the aBoeing fanboys and the Airbus-weenies in an instant in the endless threads about the viability of the A380.

Good luck with an answer! For me, it's a combination of both - I like big, comfortable a/c and to have them going wherever I want.


25 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Yes, but what about going whenever you want? The question (as I understand it) is whether you want to take an A350/B787 leaving right now, or would y
26 747400sp : Bigger A/C! The more room the more confordable.
27 Post contains images Sllevin : The proper thing you should be trying to teach is that the best trip for the planet is the trip not taken. Once you are actually taking the trip, the
28 CXfirst : Bigger A/C - because, if I got a large aircraft (777) on a route that usually has a 757 or 737, I would usually get much better IFE. But for most biz
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is Your Best Or Worst Airports. List Them. posted Tue Mar 6 2007 20:46:57 by UPS Pilot
VS Or CO Long-haul In Economy. Which Is Better? posted Thu Jan 25 2007 20:09:50 by 8herveg
Which Is Better 757 Or 737? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 00:30:31 by JamesJimlb
Which Is Better New Or Used Biz Jet posted Thu Nov 2 2006 12:46:41 by UAEflyer
Which Is Better To NON REV BA176 Or 178 posted Fri May 26 2006 01:53:14 by Aerofan
What Is Your Worst Take Off Or Landing Experience? posted Wed Aug 3 2005 09:40:34 by Dogfighter2111
Swiss Or British Air- Which Biz Class Is Better? posted Wed Jun 22 2005 02:47:43 by Stock1985
HP Or WN - Which Is Better? posted Sun Jan 9 2005 22:56:36 by Pe@rson
What Is Better: More Flights Or Bigger A/c? posted Tue Apr 17 2007 16:50:33 by Mnevans
What Is AA's Service Like On Domestic B757s? posted Fri Mar 30 2007 16:25:31 by 8herveg