Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3586221/

Topic: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CO777DAL
Posted 2007-08-30 18:19:47 and read 13806 times.

Is CO on the verge of becoming a true “international” airline?

I was reading "American, other legacy airlines look internationally for growth" in the Dallas Morning News and the paper had lots of interesting information on Continental.

One thing I found particular interesting was the break down of percentage of international service among the airlines.

“Continental, for example, had 48.6 percent of its capacity in international service in July, up 10.4 percentage points from 2001.”

With almost 50% of their flying being international CO seems on the verge of becoming a true “international” airline. I say true international because CO will be flying more passengers internationally than domestically.

Does anyone think CO will reach and pass 50% of their passenger traffic being international? If yes, when do you think CO will reach that mark?

Will this be the first time (modern times) that one of the U.S. Legacy carriers will have more international passenger traffic than domestic? (Not counting pre regulation time airlines as Pan Am etc).

To me it seems CO is the most international of any of the US Legacy carriers. They are not the biggest in the country, but they still have a large domestic system and growing both domestic and international system.

I know there has been talk about the CO name and branding during, god forbid, those awful CO/UA merger threads, but CO flies to more international destinations than UA which gives them name and branding recognition in a large part of the world. It seems as each day passes the CO name and brand becomes stronger.

I also know no current US Legacy carrier is close to that of Pan Am, but is CO the closest US Legacy carrier today in terms of being the most international?

I was on a CO flight Tuesday and their napkin said “IT’S A SMALL WORLD. BUT ONLY IF YOU FLY THE RIGHT AIRLINE. The most international destinations of any U.S. airline.”

I guess it’s true they are not called Continental for nothing  Wink

Thoughts?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: United787
Posted 2007-08-30 19:06:47 and read 13667 times.

I am curious to know what percentage of AA, UA and DL's operations are international.

Correct me if I am wrong but:
DL beats CO to Europe
UA and NW beats CO to Asia and
AA beats CO to Latin America (incl the Caribbean)

It seems like CO can make that claim because of a ton of Mexico destinations along with Micronesia added to their Europe destinations.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CV880
Posted 2007-08-30 19:17:22 and read 13637 times.

It seems that a large percentage of CO's international flights are on narrow bodied aircraft as opposed to the other legacy carriers. Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Cageyjames
Posted 2007-08-30 19:41:32 and read 13548 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

If it gets me where I need to be quicker, it would be well worth it.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: PA101
Posted 2007-08-30 19:48:03 and read 13517 times.

Well, compared to other carriers such as AA, CO seems to do the right strategy by focussing on secondary airports such as EDI, HAM or OSL as well. Thus, they'll eventually pick up more and more passengers that prefer to fly to EWR directly, without having to use the highly crowded hubs at LHR, CDG or FRA.

In my opinion, they'll have the best chance to grow further and therefore, in a few years, might be Americas largest international carrier.

In regards to their 757s flying TATL: even though, I consider narrowbodies somewhat nasty on long flights, I'd still choose on of their flights over having to transfer. And meanwhile, AA and NW started as well to use 757s for TATL flights... Seems like, CO set the path for that.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CXA330300
Posted 2007-08-30 20:41:37 and read 13364 times.

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
Does anyone think CO will reach and pass 50% of their passenger traffic being international? If yes, when do you think CO will reach that mark?

Maybe in a few years time. Continental probably has many more services in planning right now. Can anyone confirm the rumour of a third daily TLV flight?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Tpaewr
Posted 2007-08-30 20:49:14 and read 13312 times.

Just becsue you don't like the aircraft doesn't mean EWR-TXL isn't an int'l flight. Facts are, that most CO pax are and have been int'l, given that wihle int'l service makes up 48%, and many of the domestic flight are full of int'l connecters.

But alas, these flights are not operated by 3-class 747-400s so they don't really count, never mind....

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: TreeHillRavens
Posted 2007-08-30 21:18:46 and read 13225 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

AVOD are coming to the 752 in all classes. It will make a whole lot of difference.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: RwSEA
Posted 2007-08-30 21:25:16 and read 13190 times.

Quoting CXA330300 (Reply 5):
Can anyone confirm the rumour of a third daily TLV flight?

Very unlikely until the 787s arrive. CO's widebody capacity is just about maxed out, and obviously the 757 can't make it.

Quoting United787 (Reply 1):
DL beats CO to Europe
UA and NW beats CO to Asia and
AA beats CO to Latin America (incl the Caribbean)

Those are all true. But CO is a close second to Europe, more of a distant second to Latin America. Obviously doesn't hold a candle to NW or UA in Asia.

CO's strategy is similar to DL, but different than the others. Take the example of Europe. AA and UA focus on the biggest and most important airports (LHR, FRA, CDG, AMS, etc.) and leave the rest to their partners. NW even more so - preferring to transfer just about all of their TATL pax to KL at AMS. DL and CO rely less on their partners and prefer to open more unique destinations.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2007-08-30 21:42:15 and read 13115 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

Quite a lot of people, actually Smile

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-08-30 21:53:53 and read 13073 times.

Quoting United787 (Reply 1):
It seems like CO can make that claim because of a ton of Mexico destinations along with Micronesia added to their Europe destinations.

They ARE international destinations, are they not? How does that qualify CO's claim in any way? It doesn't.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
It seems that a large percentage of CO's international flights are on narrow bodied aircraft as opposed to the other legacy carriers. Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

Apparently, a lot of people, based on how successful CO's 757 flying to secondary European markets has been. Just because you don't like it as an Anet wanker doesn't mean the general public even cares. They want an aircraft to get them there. The type of equipment used doesn't qualify international service, either, does it?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Lemurs
Posted 2007-08-30 21:58:55 and read 13043 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
It seems that a large percentage of CO's international flights are on narrow bodied aircraft as opposed to the other legacy carriers. Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

As opposed to 6-7 hours in a widebody, 2-3 hours on the ground in a crowded hub airport (possibly clearing customs and immigrations), and then another 30-60 minutes in a narrowbody/commuter airplane, and then finally being at your destination?

Uhm...I want to spend 6+ hours in a 757, to go right to my destination, thanks.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Jetlanta
Posted 2007-08-30 22:02:57 and read 13023 times.

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
I also know no current US Legacy carrier is close to that of Pan Am, but is CO the closest US Legacy carrier today in terms of being the most international?

Part of the reason that CO's international network contributes such a large part of it's traffic is the fact that it's domestic network is so small. With it's two major hubs at the edge of the county, it is natural that it would have a big international share vs. domestic. CO's lack of a significant hub in the Midwest , Southeast or West (CLE is not significant yet) means that it's network is quite underdeveloped domestically. AA, UA and DL are much bigger domestically, which means that the domestic share of traffic is higher within their networks, despite being bigger international carriers than CO.

Also keep in mind that international traffic and revenue are not the same thing. CO carries a lot of people to Mexico. This has a huge impact on traffic, but contributes relatively small numbers in terms of revenue. 10 passengers to Merida are not as valuable as 10 passengers to Dubai. Or even 3, probably.

All of that said, all four of these carriers, and NW are "true" international carriers. Each of them rivals the largest cariers anywhere in the world.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Bobnwa
Posted 2007-08-30 22:08:31 and read 13003 times.

Quoting Tpaewr (Reply 6):
Just becsue you don't like the aircraft doesn't mean EWR-TXL isn't an int'l flight. Facts are, that most CO pax are and have been int'l, given that wihle int'l service makes up 48%, and many of the domestic flight are full of int'l connecters

They are not counted twice. If a passenger flies MCO-EWR-CDG he is an international passenger only. He is not counted as domestic. So most CO passengers have not been intl, only 48%. Domestic passengers are 52%.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Atmx2000
Posted 2007-08-30 22:13:23 and read 12977 times.

Quoting PA101 (Reply 4):
In my opinion, they'll have the best chance to grow further and therefore, in a few years, might be Americas largest international carrier.

EWR capacity issues could constrain their growth.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 10):
They ARE international destinations, are they not? How does that qualify CO's claim in any way? It doesn't.

And it's the same way that European carriers can claim to be large international carriers: proximity to large foreign countries.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: LawnDart
Posted 2007-08-30 22:22:27 and read 12929 times.

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
“Continental, for example, had 48.6 percent of its capacity in international service in July, up 10.4 percentage points from 2001.”



Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
Does anyone think CO will reach and pass 50% of their passenger traffic being international?

Do you consider "Passenger Traffic" as a passenger boarded or a passenger flown one mile?

If ten passengers board a CO flight in CLT, fly to EWR and then on to DEL, they produce approximately 78,000 revenue passenger miles, but if 90 others board in CLT and get off in EWR, they produce only 47,000 revenue passenger miles.

Using this example, 61% of the revenue passenger miles are being flown by internationally-destined passengers, but 90% of the passengers boarding the flight in CLT are domestic.

So keep in mind that the statistics being used are Available Seat Miles. Defining "passenger traffic" as Revenue Passenger Miles then, yes, CO will undoubtedly reach the 50% mark, or more.

Quoting Tpaewr (Reply 6):
Facts are, that most CO pax are and have been int'l, given that wihle int'l service makes up 48%, and many of the domestic flight are full of int'l connecters.

Although I have no facts as far as CO is concerned, I would bet that international passenger boardings are a smaller percentage than domestic boardings.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: Uzimmermann
Posted 2007-08-30 22:24:00 and read 12931 times.

My wife flew with CO from SFO to HAM via EWR and it was a mess. On her outbound flight she arrived at SFO to be told her flight was late and she wouldn't be able to catch the EWR to HAM flight. Although she was there well early enough to get on a previous flight from SFO to EWR and there were seats available on that flight they wouldn't move her over. Now I wasn't present so I can't say what she tried or not tried to tell them. So she ended up late into EWR and after much back and forth they finally put her on a VS flight through LHR, then LH to HAM. She arrived like 6 hours or more late.

On the flight back I brought her to HAM and man, was she getting grilled by some CO Security person at HAM before she even got to the counter. I was standing next to her, having to translate a few times as the security person didn't speak english and my wife's german isn't that good. Took like over 10 minutes while other people got much faster to the counter.

She found the service on board of the 757 terrible and unfriendly and then got delayed again for some time in EWR before finally getting back to SFO. Never again she says.

I flew next day with BA via LHR, my check-in was a breeze, less then 3 minutes at the counter.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: JRadier
Posted 2007-08-30 22:27:56 and read 12911 times.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 8):
CO's widebody capacity is just about maxed out, and obviously the 757 can't make it.

You can, however, replace a widebody with 2 757's (if cargo is not a large consideration) and deploy that to TLV.

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 13):
They are not counted twice. If a passenger flies MCO-EWR-CDG he is an international passenger only. He is not counted as domestic. So most CO passengers have not been intl, only 48%. Domestic passengers are 52%.

May I ask where you got this info from? The article clearly refers to capacity, not passengers. So the MCO-EWR segment IS counted as domestic. If MCO-EWR-CDG is counted as an international passenger, you have an international pax on domestic capacity (and that with all connecting international traffic) so the number of international passengers is probably higher then that 50% (provided there is more then 2% international connecting traffic).

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Lemurs
Posted 2007-08-30 22:40:46 and read 12834 times.

Quoting Uzimmermann (Reply 16):
I flew next day with BA via LHR, my check-in was a breeze, less then 3 minutes at the counter.

Like most airline anecdotes, this is one flight from one person. I don't doubt that your wife had a bad experience, but no airline is immune from late flights or rescheduling, as I have had plenty of bad experiences on most airlines, BA, LH, et al. CO wins customer rankings year in and year out because when you average the experience out across the board, people tend to have generally better experiences on CO because they put a lot of effort into the customer service. They will always be exceptions however...you just need to recognize that one experience does not an airline make.

All things considered, only getting in 6 hours late after missing an International connection would make me THRILLED. My average is probably around the 18-24 hour mark. Unless you're flying direction to a Euro Megahub, there aren't a boatload of options for re-routing many times.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: San747
Posted 2007-08-30 22:54:49 and read 12777 times.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 17):
You can, however, replace a widebody with 2 757's (if cargo is not a large consideration) and deploy that to TLV.

No you can't, the 757's range isn't nearly close enough to do a NONSTOP flight that long. If you had it stop somewhere in Europe, it could work, but then what advantage would it have over any other routing you could take?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2007-08-30 23:20:24 and read 12699 times.

Quoting United787 (Reply 1):
Correct me if I am wrong but:
DL beats CO to Europe
UA and NW beats CO to Asia and
AA beats CO to Latin America (incl the Caribbean)

What's importqant about the above statement is that no carrier that "beats" CO is shown also beating CO in another category and most are way down the list in other categories. CO's international services are more diversified than DL, UA, AA and NW. Number 2 in most categories and number 3 in one adds up to unparalleled international coverage for CO. Sure, larger aircraft would be nice, but CO has a solid fleet plan that will allow greater international expansion in 2008 and 2009.
While AA struggles with the looming replacement issue of the huge MD80 fleet, UA having identity and service issues, DL trying to rebrand themselves and NW just trying to stay afloat, CO is pressing forward on a steady pace, even if some see it as slower than they would like.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-08-30 23:35:31 and read 12657 times.

Quoting Uzimmermann (Reply 16):
On the flight back I brought her to HAM and man, was she getting grilled by some CO Security person at HAM before she even got to the counter.

This security person was more than likely a airport employee , not a Continental employee.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-08-30 23:41:39 and read 12637 times.

Actually, I'm not even sure that CO's claim to be more international is even accurate. I believe DL now serves more destinations worldwide than any other airline so by that measure CO is not the largest int'l airline.

As several have shown, on a traffic basis CO is not #1 in any region of the world.

But the real measure demonstrating how international a carrier is the percent of revenue an airline derives from int'l operations. By accounting standards, companies do report where their revenue comes from. CO does get a higher percentage of revenue from int'l operations but not more absolute revenue than other US carriers.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 8):
DL and CO rely less on their partners and prefer to open more unique destinations.

Actually, DL has very strong relationships with its partners but it ALSO has a diverse route network. I personally think CO will be squeezed in the int'l arena as other carriers offer the same destinations CO has but also have alliance relationships to support those routes.

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 12):
Part of the reason that CO's international network contributes such a large part of it's traffic is the fact that it's domestic network is so small.

CO's domestic system also loses money, according to DOT data, and has since 9/11. CO's profits come solely from its int'l system. No other US airline has been unprofitable in any region of the world as long as CO is on its domestic system.

And CO is adding capacity to its domestic system, partly to get its costs down but it is also depressing its revenue performance.

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 12):
With it's two major hubs at the edge of the county, it is natural that it would have a big international share vs. domestic.

Both of them are also very large international cities too.

Quoting Uzimmermann (Reply 16):
I was standing next to her, having to translate a few times as the security person didn't speak english

please tell me you are kidding. An employee or even a public contact contractor working for a US airline who cannot speak English?

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 20):
CO is pressing forward on a steady pace, even if some see it as slower than they would like.

Actually, CO was virtually alone in adding int'l capacity in the late 90s and into the early 2000s. They will find the sledding increasingly difficult as other carriers add capacity. They are certainly not in danger but their heady forward progress will slow because there are lots of other int'l airlines adding capacity. Every US airline is figuring out to wring just one more int'l flight out of their existing fleet.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: COEI2007
Posted 2007-08-30 23:47:11 and read 12616 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
It seems that a large percentage of CO's international flights are on narrow bodied aircraft as opposed to the other legacy carriers. Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757

Who wants to travel from HAM to EWR via LHR? I'd rather fly a 757 than have two flights or have to transfer at LHR!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: JRadier
Posted 2007-08-30 23:49:28 and read 12605 times.

Quoting San747 (Reply 19):

No you can't, the 757's range isn't nearly close enough to do a NONSTOP flight that long. If you had it stop somewhere in Europe, it could work, but then what advantage would it have over any other routing you could take?

Yes you can, only you haven't read the sentence correctly. You replace a widebody with 2 757's (the second EWR-AMS for example), and put that 767 (if that makes it, otherwise you can trade that in somewhere for a 777) on EWR-TLV. Of Course there are plenty of downsides (less cargo capacity, EWR-TLV being a longer flight so you need to get more capacity from somewhere), but it is possible.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-08-30 23:55:03 and read 12581 times.

Quoting COEI2007 (Reply 23):
Who wants to travel from HAM to EWR via LHR? I'd rather fly a 757 than have two flights or have to transfer at LHR!

BA carries alot of traffic from the US to continental Europe via LHR and AF carries plenty of traffic from the US to Germany. Whether you think it make sense doesn't matter. It happens and it happens alot.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: Pizzaandplanes
Posted 2007-08-30 23:56:29 and read 12581 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 22):
please tell me you are kidding. An employee or even a public contact contractor working for a US airline who cannot speak English?

Probably exaggerated a little.

Quoting Lemurs (Reply 18):
All things considered, only getting in 6 hours late after missing an International connection would make me THRILLED.

True. She is very lucky to be only 6 hours late. Anyway, things happen and no one's perfect.

Quoting TreeHillRavens (Reply 7):

AVOD are coming to the 752 in all classes. It will make a whole lot of difference.

Yes, it seems a little ridiculous but a lot of people book trans-Atlantic flights based on the plane having AVOD or not.

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 12):
10 passengers to Merida are not as valuable as 10 passengers to Dubai.

CO doesn't fly to Dubai for a reason. Therefore, 10 passengers to Merida are 100% more valuable than 10 passengers to Dubai.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: RwSEA
Posted 2007-08-31 00:24:08 and read 12531 times.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 24):
Yes you can, only you haven't read the sentence correctly. You replace a widebody with 2 757's (the second EWR-AMS for example), and put that 767 (if that makes it, otherwise you can trade that in somewhere for a 777) on EWR-TLV. Of Course there are plenty of downsides (less cargo capacity, EWR-TLV being a longer flight so you need to get more capacity from somewhere), but it is possible.

Another downside is the fact that EWR is completely saturated in the evening rush as it is, and running 2-3x daily 757s to a market that could easily support a widebody just adds to that. CO is increasingly concerned by the issues at EWR and I'm sure they're taking this into account as well.

Also, remember that CO is starting EWR-BOM in a few months, which will eat up 2 more 777s. CO only had 18 777s at last count (that may have increased to 20 with recent delieveries, not really sure), but routes like NRT, DEL, HKG, BOM, PEK, and TLV pretty much eat all that capacity up. The 767s can serve TLV, but they're much needed for routes like EZE, GRU-GIG, ATH, etc. When the 777s come off of BRU to serve BOM, that will take more 752s.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Tpaewr
Posted 2007-08-31 00:28:30 and read 12513 times.

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 13):
They are not counted twice. If a passenger flies MCO-EWR-CDG he is an international passenger only. He is not counted as domestic. So most CO passengers have not been intl, only 48%. Domestic passengers are 52%.

I read "Continental, for example, had 48.6 percent of its capacity in international service ", capacity I am understanding as ASMs, not RPM, nor RASM. So I don't believe the 48.6 includes domestic feed, only pure int'l ASM.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: JRadier
Posted 2007-08-31 00:32:22 and read 12500 times.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 27):

Another downside is the fact that EWR is completely saturated in the evening rush as it is, and running 2-3x daily 757s to a market that could easily support a widebody just adds to that. CO is increasingly concerned by the issues at EWR and I'm sure they're taking this into account as well.

Also, remember that CO is starting EWR-BOM in a few months, which will eat up 2 more 777s. CO only had 18 777s at last count (that may have increased to 20 with recent delieveries, not really sure), but routes like NRT, DEL, HKG, BOM, PEK, and TLV pretty much eat all that capacity up. The 767s can serve TLV, but they're much needed for routes like EZE, GRU-GIG, ATH, etc. When the 777s come off of BRU to serve BOM, that will take more 752s.

You make some very valid remarks, and like I said there are plenty of downsides. I don't see CO doing what I described, however it is a possibility. Probably not a very good one, as the problems far outweigh any increase in revenue.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WesternA318
Posted 2007-08-31 00:50:09 and read 12453 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

If this was 1960ish, would you be asking ...Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 707/DC-8? Or heaven forbid, the old SAS DC-8's from Oslo to LAX/SFO?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Uzimmermann
Posted 2007-08-31 01:06:34 and read 12419 times.

I am flying the SFO to HAM route about twice a year for the last 12 years. Original I tried different airlines, DL, LH, KL but I settled on BA. Original it was because the connections through LHR were better in my opinion then through other cities, as little as 1.5 hours coming from SFO. Although the last few times I have flown in F or J, and with the lounge and showers in LHR, I have actually stopped there for 3-5 hours and enjoyed a nice long shower before continuing on to HAM for dinner and bed.

As pointed out the security person my wife encountered in HAM was very possible an airport employee but BA had none of them standing there (which could well be because my flight was just to LHR). But it was still bad. 10 minutes? My wife is an US citizen, returning to her country and she got grilled for 10 minutes. And it wasn't like there was anyone in front of her at the counter, other people behind her got to the counter before her. Even this was just one round trip, based on what I have personal seen and heard from her, I won't fly CO to HAM.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CV880
Posted 2007-08-31 01:06:44 and read 12419 times.

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 30):
If this was 1960ish, would you be asking ...Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 707/DC-8? Or heaven forbid, the old SAS DC-8's from Oslo to LAX/SFO?

I'd rather be in a DL767-300ER vs a CO757-200 anyday. Now when DL begins TATL 757 service with fuel stops on the westbound leg (if that happens), then I may feel different.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Jetlanta
Posted 2007-08-31 01:21:07 and read 12382 times.

Quoting Pizzaandplanes (Reply 26):
CO doesn't fly to Dubai for a reason. Therefore, 10 passengers to Merida are 100% more valuable than 10 passengers to Dubai.

You didn't understand my point.

I'm saying that certainly CO has a higher % of its capacity in international markets, but an extremely large portion of that international capacity comes in very small regional markets where revenue numbers are much smaller.

Those 10 passengers to Merida do not generate as much revenue for CO as 10 passengers to Dubai do for Delta (or 10 passengers to HKG for CO). The Merida passengers likely don't even generate as much revenue as 10 SEA passengers for CO. The point here is that % of seats in international markets really isn't a significant metric. % of revenue is a much better one.

Besides, the only reason CO doesn't fly to DXB is the lack of a suitable aircraft. Once the 787 arrives, they will be in that market from IAH for sure.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-08-31 01:28:34 and read 12360 times.

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 33):
Those 10 passengers to Merida do not generate as much revenue for CO as 10 passengers to Dubai do for Delta (or 10 passengers to HKG for CO). The Merida passengers likely don't even generate as much revenue as 10 SEA passengers for CO. The point here is that % of seats in international markets really isn't a significant metric. % of revenue is a much better one.

but the costs to fly to Merida are much lower than to Dubai. That is why at a route level the best metric is the profit MARGIN - which considers both the costs and revenue.

AA has a considerable lead over other airlines in the number of international passengers because so many are to the Caribbean and Latin America which do not generate as much revenue as transoceanic passengers, on average.

CO may well fly to DXB but remember that EK is starting IAH-DXB in just a couple months - they will have a considerable head start. That is why I say that it will not be easy for CO to continue to expand as it did for the past 10 years because alot of other carriers - foreign and US - are adding routes asaggressively if not moreso than CO.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-08-31 01:39:18 and read 12324 times.

[quote=Uzimmermann,reply=31]other people behind her got to the counter before her. /quote]

What was it about your wife that made them suspicious?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: TrvlnMan
Posted 2007-08-31 02:12:31 and read 12260 times.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 15):
Although I have no facts as far as CO is concerned, I would bet that international passenger boardings are a smaller percentage than domestic boardings.

Yeah, As stated above, 48% international. That leaves the remaining 52% for domestic..... 48 IS less than 52.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: TrvlnMan
Posted 2007-08-31 02:19:47 and read 12249 times.

Quoting Uzimmermann (Reply 16):
My wife flew with CO from SFO to HAM via EWR and it was a mess. On her outbound flight she arrived at SFO to be told her flight was late and she wouldn't be able to catch the EWR to HAM flight. Although she was there well early enough to get on a previous flight from SFO to EWR and there were seats available on that flight they wouldn't move her over.

I find that hard to believe.... I'd be interested in hearing how the conversation between her and the agent went. Not saying it didn't happen, just a little doubtful that if there were seats available and enough time for her to make the flight that she would be denied. Many passengers think that 10 minutes prior to departure is plenty of time to make a flight. Another possibility is that it may have been weight restricted - unfortunately, sometimes a plane has to go out with empty seats for this reason.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-08-31 02:36:40 and read 12189 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 22):
No other US airline has been unprofitable in any region of the world as long as CO is on its domestic system.

Does that include the Quarters that CO was reporting profits and DL was under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from their Creditors? CO was the First Major to report consecutive profitable quarters after 9-11, CO was the First US Legacy after 9-11 to break even for the year, and CO was the first US legacy to report a yearly profit since 9-11.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-08-31 02:58:21 and read 12117 times.

I'm not disputing that. I'm simply saying that the most recent DOT data shows that CO's domestic system is unprofitable and the same data says that it has been since 9/11. No other airline has had a DOT region remain consistently unprofitable for so long.

The point is that even though CO's international system does very well, CO does not have a financially viable domestic system. No matter how good CO may do on its international routes, it cannot perform on par with other carriers financially until it fixes its domestic system.

Dismissing the huge financial burden CO's domestic system is to it is like a patient asking his doctor to notice how good his chest and arms look as a result of the time he has spent in the gym while overlooking the skin cancer all over his legs.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: MastaHanky
Posted 2007-08-31 03:08:51 and read 12081 times.

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 30):

If this was 1960ish, would you be asking ...Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 707/DC-8? Or heaven forbid, the old SAS DC-8's from Oslo to LAX/SFO?

I still find it funny that people have no problem doing a 6+ hour trip on a 757 (or smaller) from EWR to LAX, but a 6+ hour trip from EWR to EDI is horrible. Guess they don't trust the 757 over that big scary ocean or something...

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-08-31 03:12:33 and read 12069 times.

Quoting MastaHanky (Reply 40):
a 6+ hour trip from EWR to EDI is horrible.

just wait til 737NGs start plying the North Atlantic.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: LTBEWR
Posted 2007-08-31 03:15:18 and read 12056 times.

Most people would define as a true 'international' airline as one that offers service to a number of significant countries, not just nearby island or 'postage stamp' countries. For a USA based airline, I would suggest more than 35% of it's service would have to be 'international' under it's own metal (or composite), not just to the Caribbean or adjacent countries like Canada or Mexico. By that definition CO is, as are UA, AA, NW, but not US, Jet Blue, among USA based airlines, true international ones.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-08-31 03:21:18 and read 12035 times.

Another item that makes CO more International than the other US carriers is the fact that one of CO's hubs (Guam) caters almost entirely to connecting non-US citizens connecting to non-US destinations, much of Guam's traffic is Japanese travelers connecting through Guam to Australia, Bali, Palau, Manila etc..

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 22):
Actually, I'm not even sure that CO's claim to be more international is even accurate. I believe DL now serves more destinations worldwide than any other airline so by that measure CO is not the largest int'l airline.

CO still serves the most International Destinations of any US airline, for comparison.

DL's Asian/Pacific destinations:

Japan:
Tokyo 1 daily flight

Korea:
Seoul 1 flight

UAE:
Dubai 1 flight

India:
Mumbai 1 daily flight

Israel:
Tel Avivi 1 flight

CO's Asian/Pacific Destinations:

Australia:
Cairns 1 flight

Japan:
Tokyo 5 daily flights
Nagoya 3 daily flights
Osaka 1 daily flight
Fukuoka 1 daily flight
Hiroshima 1 flight
Niigata 1 flight
Okayama 1 flight
Sapporo 1 flight
Sendai 1 flight

Taiwan:
Taipei 1 flight

China:
Beijing 1 daily flight
Hong Kong 2 flights

Indonesia:
Denpasar Bali 1 flight

Palau:
Koror 1 flight

Caroline Islands:
Kosrae 2 flights
Pohnpei 2 flights
Truk 2 flights
Yap 2 flights

Marshall Islands:
Majuro 2 flights
Kwajalein 2 flights

Philippines:
Manila 2 daily

Northern Mariana:
Rota 1 daily flight
Saipan 7 daily flights

India:
Delhi 1 daily
Mumbai 1 daily (starts Oct)

Israel:
Tel Aviv 2 daily

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-08-31 03:28:36 and read 12015 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 41):
just wait til 737NGs start plying the North Atlantic

They already are, albeit with Business Class only seating:

LH/Privatair:
EWR-Munich daily BBJ
EWR-Dusseldorf daily A319LR

ORD-Dusseldorf daily A319LR

LX/Privatair:
EWR-Zurich 1 daily BBJ

KLM/Privatair:
IAH-Amsterdam 1 daily BBJ

If CO were to ever fly 737s across the Atlantic, it would be a similar to Privatair with an all BusinessFirst cabin.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Pizzaandplanes
Posted 2007-08-31 03:54:33 and read 11960 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 43):

Those numbers are mostly correct. Some of CO's Air Micronesia flights don't operate daily but 5 times weekly (Guam-Cairns).

Quoting STT757 (Reply 44):

If CO were to ever fly 737s across the Atlantic, it would be a similar to Privatair with an all BusinessFirst cabin.

Unfortunately, thats not CO's business model. Also, that is the only way it could be profitable. So, don't expect the 737NGs to cross the Atlantic...ever...

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: IAHFLYER
Posted 2007-08-31 04:53:03 and read 11850 times.

Will CO ever make a non-stop IAH or EWR-Guam flight? Guam is listed as a hub on the website. Yet, to get there you have to go to HAWAII first.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-08-31 05:25:02 and read 11638 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 32):
I'd rather be in a DL767-300ER vs a CO757-200 anyday.

Depends on your itinerary, doesn't it? If you want to get nonstop to places like HAM, BEL, SNN, DUB, TXL, etc, from the states, you'll have to fly a 757-200 on CO. If you're going to CDG, MAD, LGW, and maybe onward to Africa or the Middle East, you can take a widebody from the states to those cities, then onward.

But if you're looking for convenience, and not having multiple connections, the EWR-secondary European destination flights have been a boon not only for CO, but those smaller markets who otherwise would not have nonstop service to the U.S.

And, again, you're welcome to your opinion, but the average Joe doesn't care, not does he even know the type of aircraft he/she is flying. As long as it has two wings, at least two engines, and is safe, they'll fly it.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2007-08-31 05:35:01 and read 11558 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 22):
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 20):
CO is pressing forward on a steady pace, even if some see it as slower than they would like.

Actually, CO was virtually alone in adding int'l capacity in the late 90s and into the early 2000s. They will find the sledding increasingly difficult as other carriers add capacity. They are certainly not in danger but their heady forward progress will slow because there are lots of other int'l airlines adding capacity. Every US airline is figuring out to wring just one more int'l flight out of their existing fleet.

Wow, now WorldTraveler states that CO has a disaster of a domestic system and that its international system will be pinched out by other carriers. Yeh, those 787's with a 20% lower operating cost will get killed by those old 763's.

These perils of wisdom coming from a proponent of a carrier that is digging its way up from a recent bankruptcy by using the same tactics that CO started using in the "late 90s and early 2000s". But DL, unlike CO, hastily jammed more international flights into JFK with domestically configured aircraft, trying to right the ship on domestic capacity. Undoubtedly, WorldTraveler was fully supportive of DL's misuse of 767 and L1011 aircraft in the past (MCO-ATL, etc.).

CO's fleet plan allows for economic changes by bringing on state of the art aircraft and having aircraft like the 762 (newer than DL's 767s) available for sale if times get tough. If they get tough for CO, they'll be tough for DL and the rest as well.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-08-31 05:43:20 and read 11493 times.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 48):
Wow, now WorldTraveler states that CO has a disaster of a domestic system

Hardly a disaster. It may not be as big as UA's or DL's, but it moves CO's traffic around quite nicely. EWR and IAH are, basically, at max strength now, and CLE, from all indications, will start a buildup in the next year that will make it a viable alternative to CVG, DTW, ORD. The domestic compliments CO's very large international system quite nicely, thank you.  Smile

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: TheCol
Posted 2007-08-31 05:53:10 and read 11416 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

If I can do 5 and 1/2 in a 737, then I can definitely fly 6-7 hours comfortably in a 757.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Evan767
Posted 2007-08-31 06:02:47 and read 11345 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 47):
Depends on your itinerary, doesn't it? If you want to get nonstop to places like HAM, BEL, SNN, DUB, TXL, etc, from the states, you'll have to fly a 757-200 on CO. If you're going to CDG, MAD, LGW, and maybe onward to Africa or the Middle East, you can take a widebody from the states to those cities, then onward.

Actually Delta flies a 763 to TXL, a 763 to DUB from ATL and JFK, and a 764 to SNN from JFK and ATL. It's true that for CO's 'smaller' European markets like HAM and BEL you'd have to fly on a 752, but, for comparisons sake, for DL's 'smaller' European markets such as EDI, SNN, DUS, PSA, KBP, OTP, VIE, STR, etc.. you will get a widebody.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: LawnDart
Posted 2007-08-31 06:04:14 and read 11322 times.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 24):
Yes you can, only you haven't read the sentence correctly.

Actually, I understood it to mean 757s flying to TLV as well. Maybe it was you who didn't write the sentence correctly  wink 

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 48):
a carrier that is digging its way up from a recent bankruptcy by using the same tactics that CO started using in the "late 90s and early 2000s".

Are you talking about CO's trips through bankruptcy? Because CO did that prior to the late '90s...oh, wait...you're talking about the international expansion...my bad!

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 48):
But DL, unlike CO, hastily jammed more international flights into JFK with domestically configured aircraft,

Hastily? Shoot...they've been flying internationally out of JFK for a long time, now. Hardly hasty. And apart from, what, the 764s to Ireland, all the other transoceanic flights have BusinessElite.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 48):
Undoubtedly, WorldTraveler was fully supportive of DL's misuse of 767 and L1011 aircraft in the past (MCO-ATL, etc.).

How was DL's use of 767s and L1011s a misuse on ATL-MCO? The freakin' flights were full...the 767 and the L1011 were designed and built as domestic aircraft...so, now they've got a few 767s and mostly 757s flying to MCO, and the availability of low-cost seats on DL to MCO is more limited.

That seems to me a loss for the flying public.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Jbernie
Posted 2007-08-31 06:05:04 and read 11322 times.

I thought all you needed to be a true international airline was to tack "international" in your name some where, it seems to be all you need here in the USA to be an "international" airport.

Sarcastic I know, but sometimes it seems like every airport no matter how minor is "international".

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Uzimmermann
Posted 2007-08-31 06:29:15 and read 11179 times.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 35):
What was it about your wife that made them suspicious?

Good question, she repeated the same direction of questions over and over again, like why were you in germany, what do you have in the luguage.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: PlanenutzTB
Posted 2007-08-31 07:39:48 and read 10872 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

Always a comfy ride on a CO 757 transcon at 5 +...6++ on intl should also be very nice. I see no difference in seat comfort between a narrow and wide body plane.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: CV880
Posted 2007-08-31 07:56:10 and read 10799 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 47):
Depends on your itinerary, doesn't it? If you want to get nonstop to places like HAM, BEL, SNN, DUB, TXL, etc, from the states, you'll have to fly a 757-200 on CO. If you're going to CDG, MAD, LGW, and maybe onward to Africa or the Middle East, you can take a widebody from the states to those cities, then onward.

Where have You been......DL has been flying those routes with L10's and 767's for years.....the only carrier for years in the NYC-TXL market (767) & HAM, DUB, SNN with both L10's and 767's.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2007-08-31 08:02:18 and read 10770 times.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 52):
How was DL's use of 767s and L1011s a misuse on ATL-MCO? The freakin' flights were full...the 767 and the L1011 were designed and built as domestic aircraft...so, now they've got a few 767s and mostly 757s flying to MCO, and the availability of low-cost seats on DL to MCO is more limited.

That seems to me a loss for the flying public.

You got it, the public lost because the cost of fuel means that aircraft like the 767s and L1011s are not efficient on those routes and the result is a lot fewer freakin' low fares. So those "domestically" designed aircraft were designed to be domestic at fuel a fraction of today's cost.

[Edited 2007-08-31 08:04:15]

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Jyatlantic
Posted 2007-08-31 08:47:48 and read 10586 times.

If only Continental had a real International First Class product, and not business/first hybrid (yuck!)

They certainly do have the potential, considering their great service!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Pboud0
Posted 2007-08-31 08:48:18 and read 10579 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 41):
just wait til 737NGs start plying the North Atlantic.

Air Canada flies an A319 from YYT to LHR once a day.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Teme82
Posted 2007-08-31 09:41:55 and read 10405 times.

CO isn't "tue" intl airline untill they have flown to HEL. At least on my books. Current carriers in US only DL is one that have flown to HEL. Before them it was PanAm.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: EA CO AS
Posted 2007-08-31 10:23:22 and read 10296 times.

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 30):
Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

If this was 1960ish, would you be asking ...Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 707/DC-8? Or heaven forbid, the old SAS DC-8's from Oslo to LAX/SFO?

Here's a better question - why would you turn down a 757 when you'd jump at the chance to fly the same distance on a far narrower, shorter, smaller G-V?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: Sofianec
Posted 2007-08-31 12:34:05 and read 9937 times.

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
I also know no current US Legacy carrier is close to that of Pan Am, but is CO the closest US Legacy carrier today in terms of being the most international?

I was on a CO flight Tuesday and their napkin said “IT’S A SMALL WORLD. BUT ONLY IF YOU FLY THE RIGHT AIRLINE. The most international destinations of any U.S. airline.”

I guess it’s true they are not called Continental for nothing Wink

Thoughts?

I adore your positive attitude and I am sure that CO will continue to grow internationally and fly more and more pax every year but since you asked there's a thought for you:

CO is named Continental for a reason. I remember a very odd situation 2 years ago. I worked for a big travel agency (consolidator), selling thousands of international tickets daily and we had an unaccompanied minor on a OK ticket stock flying ORD-EWR-PRG-SOF. The child arrives on a CO plane and the station agent (CO's finest) instead of transferring the kid to JFK to board OK to PRG puts it on a SK flight to CPH (???!!!). Why you would ask. Well she apparently never worked international and thought that SOF was somewhere in Sweden therefore ... We got a hysterical call from the kid's mother asking us??? where her child was. Apparently he never got to SOF. Not only CO didn't inform anyone including OK (they had no idea - the kid was a no-show in their system) but imagine the shock of SK staff getting a kid with no instructions and a non-endorsable ticket to a place SK doesn't even code-share to. SK contacted CO and guess what! CO had no clue not they had a solution. Mind you there were no direct flight between CPH and SOF at the time. The kid had no ticket either but a boarding pass EWR-CPH and that's it!!!. We called CO almost 100 times with no info whatsoever. In fact we found out the kid was at CPH and SK were handling him 26 hours later that's why the above written includes the SK part of it. At the time the kid's mother was almost in coma and not anyone at CO had a clue what their staff did.

SK were professional enough to take care of the kid and put it on a SK/LH flight via MUC so it reunites with its parents. They also took the courtesy to call us and the parents to inform them of the kid whereabouts.

It's a long story but please let's leave the international flying to companies that actually do it well like AA, DL and UA. CO are always last on my list in terms of professional handling and there is an abyss difference between IAH and EWR based staff. EWR are just terrible (i mean international).

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Fllcontinental
Posted 2007-08-31 13:01:57 and read 9834 times.

Quoting Sofianec (Reply 62):
It's a long story but please let's leave the international flying to companies that actually do it well like AA, DL and UA. CO are always last on my list in terms of professional handling and there is an abyss difference between IAH and EWR based staff. EWR are just terrible (i mean international).

No offense to you but what you are saying is uneducated and ridiculous. You should actually fly CO internatioally a few times before you say that. CO has a far superior staff and new Terminal C. Compared to DL, UA, and especially AA on interational flights I would pick CO for any day, any month, any year.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: Sofianec
Posted 2007-08-31 13:09:51 and read 9803 times.

Quoting Fllcontinental (Reply 63):

No offense to you but what you are saying is uneducated and ridiculous.

I can agree it's an overstatement but it is not ridiculous. It's also true I never flew on CO internationally (I never claimed to) but the handling of the situation in that report I was a side witness to was total chaos with a big pinch of indifference on CO part. Terminal is new - that's true but the service levels of CO vs SK in that situation speak for themselves. I flew many times on DL and AA out of JFK, almost once a month for 3 years UA out of ORD (i was based there) and I found no significant flaws with them. Also as part of my service with the ticket consolidator UA was very well prepared to handle situations like the one noted (we never actually had a similar case with any other carrier but CO). It may have been a rare and isolated incident still quite drastic in its effect on people involved.

I thought the current thread was about Continental and whether they are ready to be a "True" international airline. I remembered this incident and my impressions of CO's handling were and have been ever since not very nice. When I speak of service I do not refer to on-board service and amenities, rather on ticketing and pure geographical knowledge or should I say incompetence. Please, don't mix the two - you obviously are since you'll take CO anytime over DL, UA, AA. I can speak of UA and they definitely are very well prepared for mixups and ticketing issues - and these are very common on multi-leg, multi-carrier intercontinental trips.

[Edited 2007-08-31 13:12:10]

[Edited 2007-08-31 13:18:08]

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: JRadier
Posted 2007-08-31 13:14:31 and read 9774 times.

People, start reading! A lot of the comments just miss their target because they don't answer the quote!

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 52):
Hastily? Shoot...they've been flying internationally out of JFK for a long time, now. Hardly hasty.

Again, read. He said 'hastily expansion'. DL might have been flying internationally from JFK for a long time, but the expansion can be hastily (domestic configured aircraft and such).

Quoting Jyatlantic (Reply 58):
If only Continental had a real International First Class product, and not business/first hybrid (yuck!)

Why do you need a real international First product? A lot of European airlines (KL, OY etc), CO, NW have been flying with just businessclass on international flights, and it works.

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 60):
CO isn't "tue" intl airline untill they have flown to HEL. At least on my books. Current carriers in US only DL is one that have flown to HEL. Before them it was PanAm.

Erm... why is that? Just because they don't fly to this one airport they are not international? Apparently HEL isn't that interesting from a marketing perspective.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: B4REAL
Posted 2007-08-31 13:45:45 and read 9665 times.

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 51):
ut, for comparisons sake, for DL's 'smaller' European markets such as EDI, SNN, DUS, PSA, KBP, OTP, VIE, STR, etc.. you will get a widebody.



Quoting LawnDart (Reply 52):
all the other transoceanic flights have BusinessElite.

The 757s are coming to TATL operations for DL...

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Daron4000
Posted 2007-08-31 14:11:28 and read 9567 times.

Quoting CO777DAL (Thread starter):
To me it seems CO is the most international of any of the US Legacy carriers. They are not the biggest in the country, but they still have a large domestic system and growing both domestic and international system.

I know there has been talk about the CO name and branding during, god forbid, those awful CO/UA merger threads, but CO flies to more international destinations than UA which gives them name and branding recognition in a large part of the world. It seems as each day passes the CO name and brand becomes stronger.

I also know no current US Legacy carrier is close to that of Pan Am, but is CO the closest US Legacy carrier today in terms of being the most international?

Even though they may fly to the most destinations (disputed here but not really relevant), they lack the capacity to be the US' most international airline. UA and AA carry a lot more international passengers to the same destinations because of the larger aircraft and larger fleets of these aircraft that they have. For example, comparing UA to CO, their largest respective jets are not the same size. UA has 30 747 with 347 while CO only has 20 777 with 283 seats. However, UA also has 52 777's (of which 6 are not international) with a capacity of approximately 258 seats. That compares to CO's 10 762 of only 174 seats and 16 764 with 235 seats. Finally, UA's fleet of 35 767's with a capacity of 193 seats compares to CO's 41 752 with 175 seats. And this does not account for the new seats on UA which will increase overall capacity on 747 and 777, decrease on 767 but ultimately lead to an increase in international ASM's. So UA will always be bigger internationally than CO, just by being able to offer more capcity, even if it is to fewer destinatons.
You also talk about brand name. While CO is starting to be well-known in its secondary markets, UA has been and continues to be one of the world's largest, most reputable, and well-known airlines on the globe. They are a founding member of Star Alliance, have a very intricate revenue sharing system with Lufthansa, they have an extensive Asian network (the most of any US airline to Asia and to China specifically) with intra-Asian flights popular for high-service levels from SIN/BKK staff, and one of only 2 US carriers to fly to LHR. They are also one of only 2 US carriers to operate the 747, not only known for its stature as queen of the skies but also for the fact that if you have 747's, then you are a global carrier. (Name a large, reputable foreign carrier that doesn't have or had up until very recently, 747's in their fleet). So ultimately, I would say that while CO certainly has a lot of intrnational traffic for thier network, they are not the most international of all US carriers.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-08-31 14:14:41 and read 9543 times.

Quoting Sofianec (Reply 62):
CO is named Continental for a reason. I remember a very odd situation 2 years ago. I worked for a big travel agency (consolidator), selling thousands of international tickets daily and we had an unaccompanied minor on a OK ticket stock flying ORD-EWR-PRG-SOF. The child arrives on a CO plane and the station agent (CO's finest) instead of transferring the kid to JFK to board OK to PRG puts it on a SK flight to CPH (???!!!). Why you would ask. Well she apparently never worked international and thought that SOF was somewhere in Sweden therefore ... We got a hysterical call from the kid's mother asking us??? where her child was. Apparently he never got to SOF. Not only CO didn't inform anyone including OK (they had no idea - the kid was a no-show in their system) but imagine the shock of SK staff getting a kid with no instructions and a non-endorsable ticket to a place SK doesn't even code-share to. SK contacted CO and guess what! CO had no clue not they had a solution. Mind you there were no direct flight between CPH and SOF at the time. The kid had no ticket either but a boarding pass EWR-CPH and that's it!!!. We called CO almost 100 times with no info whatsoever. In fact we found out the kid was at CPH and SK were handling him 26 hours later that's why the above written includes the SK part of it. At the time the kid's mother was almost in coma and not anyone at CO had a clue what their staff did.

If you were the party that ticketed this unaccompanied minor, than you are the one who was incompetent! Why would you route a minor with a transferr from EWR to JFK? I wouldn't attemt that as an adult.Why did the SK agent accept this child without a SK boarding pass? Your whole story sounds fishy!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: 777gk
Posted 2007-08-31 14:47:34 and read 9400 times.

Quoting Daron4000 (Reply 67):
(Name a large, reputable foreign carrier that doesn't have or had up until very recently, 747's in their fleet).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier Rodriguez - Iberian Spotters



I know not very recent (don't worry, I caught your qualifier), but come on, what a stupid criterion anyway!

I'll play anyway. Emirates. SAS. Aeroflot. Swiss. Austrian. LAN Chile. Ethiopian. TAP. Not to mention carriers in the USA like American or Delta.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 68):
Your whole story sounds fishy!

Agreed, or maybe it's the incoherent syntax. I won't even begin to try to follow it!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Bobnwa
Posted 2007-08-31 14:58:57 and read 9344 times.

Quoting Teme82 (Reply 60):
CO isn't "tue" intl airline untill they have flown to HEL. At least on my books. Current carriers in US only DL is one that have flown to HEL. Before them it was PanAm.

By your definition, then UA ,NW,CX,SQ,VS,AA etc are not true intl cariers since they don't fly to HEL but Finnair would be a true intl carrier?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Dz09
Posted 2007-08-31 15:52:30 and read 9035 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 9):
Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

Quite a lot of people, actually

I doubt that. I flew BCN-EWR yesterday (~ 8 hour flight) and it was not a pleasant flight. There should be some regulations against using narrow bodies on such long flights.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-08-31 15:55:40 and read 9025 times.

Quoting Dz09 (Reply 71):
I doubt that. I flew BCN-EWR yesterday (~ 8 hour flight) and it was not a pleasant flight. There should be some regulations against using narrow bodies on such long flights.

I flew EWR-BCN last October on my Honeymoon with my Wife who is claustrophobic, it was one of our best flights.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: JRadier
Posted 2007-08-31 16:12:59 and read 8917 times.

Quoting Dz09 (Reply 71):
There should be some regulations against using narrow bodies on such long flights.

How about you just book with another airline if you don't like it?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-08-31 16:26:46 and read 8821 times.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 73):
Quoting Dz09 (Reply 71):
There should be some regulations against using narrow bodies on such long flights.

How about you just book with another airline if you don't like it?

What a stupid comment! I would if I had a real choice.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-08-31 16:27:57 and read 8821 times.

Quoting Dz09 (Reply 71):

I



Quoting Dz09 (Reply 71):
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 9):
Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

Quite a lot of people, actually

I doubt that. I flew BCN-EWR yesterday (~ 8 hour flight) and it was not a pleasant flight. There should be some regulations against using narrow bodies on such long flights.

CO carries way over a million people across the Pond in their 757's every year. Not to mention the passengers on their wide -body fleet. Why would you doubt that. If you did'nt like your BCN-EWR flight next time fly in-direct on a different carrier.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: JRadier
Posted 2007-08-31 16:30:19 and read 8793 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 74):
What a stupid comment! I would if I had a real choice.

Thank you for that unwarranted flame! You always have a choice!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-08-31 16:31:17 and read 8793 times.

Quoting Daron4000 (Reply 67):
Even though they may fly to the most destinations (disputed here but not really relevant), they lack the capacity to be the US' most international airline.

Capacity is one thing. Flying to the most destinations is another. Apple and oranges, my friend.

And UA is a larger airline than CO. Always has been. CO isn't out to be another United, which, in many ways, is a very good thing, looking at their recent financial records. CO is looking to make A PROFIT,and the way we utilize our fleet lets us do that.

All that capacity you rave about has been over-capacity for the big three since 9/11, and the decline of traffic after that. They couldn't fill all those big planes, and it hurt them, big-time. CO has the kind of fleet it wants, for the system it wants to provide. What's wrong with that?

Quoting Dz09 (Reply 71):
There should be some regulations against using narrow bodies on such long flights.

Why? They can safely make the trips. They're certified for the trips. Why have a regulation, because some ANet wanker is in love with widebodies?

Glad you're not a CEO!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-08-31 16:33:37 and read 8779 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 74):

What was it about your flight that you did'nt like. The service? the seat pitch? The fact that you didn't have to transfer in another airport ? The fact that you got home a few hours earlier?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-08-31 16:41:01 and read 8715 times.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 75):
CO carries way over a million people across the Pond in their 757's every year. Not to mention the passengers on their wide -body fleet. Why would you doubt that. If you did'nt like your BCN-EWR flight next time fly in-direct on a different carrier.

Having to fly on a 757 and wanting to fly on 757 across the atlantic are 2 different things. Like you said, next time I will try to fly with the 10 or so airlines that fly direct to barcelona from Newark.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-08-31 16:52:56 and read 8648 times.

I would very much like to get an honest opinion about travelling on 757's on such long flights from regular travellers not from some airline employees.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-08-31 17:02:08 and read 8582 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 77):
Glad you're not a CEO!

I am a CEO and a successful one, but I am not your typical 150M a year CEO. My business is based on providing the best product possible. I do not have to answer to shareholders so If we have to cut our profit margin to keep a client happy so be it. We still make money and we rely on repeat business. I don't care what you think but a 757, although a great plane, is not fit for travel for a 6+ hour flight.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: Sofianec
Posted 2007-08-31 17:12:42 and read 8522 times.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 68):
If you were the party that ticketed this unaccompanied minor, than you are the one who was incompetent!

How exactly were we incompetent? Our responsibility is to issue the ticket. The airline's responsibility however is to get it to the final destination safely. CO failed to do just that.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 68):
Why would you route a minor with a transferr from EWR to JFK? I wouldn't attemt that as an adult.

The consolidator issues the ticket the way it was requested by the passenger or in this case the issue requesting party (parent, travel agency). It is a perfectly valid transfer not to mention one that the OK (the ticketing carrier) recommends. CO doesn't do JFK therefore the first leg must be ORD-EWR. OK doesn't do EWR-PRG therefore the leg is JFK-PRG. There is a valid and sufficient procedure to transfer between EWR and JFK on a Dom-Int flights. I personally many times would take ATA MDW-EWR or MDW-LGA and transfer to JFK-CDG on AF. Cab fare EWR-JFK is between 45-60 $ (never took a cab but I never missed a connection), transfer shuttle is 14 $ (always on time with ample time to catch a plane, very convenient), not to forget I can do some sightseeing this way. More reasons why the routing might have been chosen are but not limited to:

1. Price - in high season better routings like ORD-FRA or MUC-SOF are very hard to get in lower ticketing classes, sometimes impossible;
2. Availability - see 1;
3. Airline Preference - i doubt that was the reason but it's still a valid reason

If you think transferring at NYC is difficult I suggest you try LON (arrive at STN and leave from LHR for instance). Still many people connect to international flights at NYC simply because it's cheaper, more seats are available due to more capacity etc ...

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 68):
Your whole story sounds fishy!

Why? Probably because I disagree with the religious-like mentality in the line of "my home team is the best", "CO could never make a mistake", "he is incompetent because he says CO is incompetent" ...

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: JRadier
Posted 2007-08-31 17:16:35 and read 8497 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 81):

Then you should know that customers just go elsewhere if they don't like the service. Furthermore, it appears that you have to answer to no-one (apart from the IRS maybe) so why don't you have a choice flying CO?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-08-31 17:17:42 and read 8497 times.

[quote=DZ09,reply=79]Having to fly on a 757 and wanting to fly on 757 across the atlantic are 2 different things. Like you s
aid, next time I will try to fly with the 10 or so airlines that fly direct to barcelona from Newark.[/quote

Your sarcastic statement is also the answer to your delema. You always have a choice. Apperently you value a non-stop flight between Barcelona and Newark more than you do a flight on a wide -body that takes you a little out of your way.
Sort of like choosing a ride in a Taxi over a ride on a Bus.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Sofianec
Posted 2007-08-31 17:21:33 and read 8470 times.

Quoting 777gk (Reply 69):
Agreed, or maybe it's the incoherent syntax. I won't even begin to try to follow it!

Oh I am really sorry - would you care to specify which part of the "syntax" lacked coherence? I will gladly explain it to you if you require. It's totally up to you though. Didn't mean to bother you with my disagreement, which is in line with the topic of the current thread. I sincerely hope it's not the flag next to my name that prompts such a comment.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Turk223
Posted 2007-08-31 17:22:28 and read 8450 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):

I just flew last week a Finnair 757 from Helsinki to Boston via Stockholm - about 10 and 1/2 hours. No big deal and felt just as cramped as a British Airways 747...

I was thinking that it is as if we are going back in time; trans-Atlantic flying in narrow bodies like when the DC-8 and 707 were king (s)!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: MasseyBrown
Posted 2007-08-31 17:36:41 and read 8378 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 77):
CO is looking to make A PROFIT,and the way we utilize our fleet lets us do that.

Exactly, Falcon84. This whole thread begs the question - assuming what you are trying to prove. Who says CO wants to be a "true international airline"? They want to make a profit moving people and goods, plain and simple. International flying is one strategy to do that.

Looking at their most recent earnings report, here, their quarterly return on assets was 1.83% (second to WN's 1.87%) and quarterly return on equity 24% (second to AMR's 52%). These QUARTERLY numbers beat most airlines ANNUAL numbers.

I don't think CO cares whether anyone considers them a "true international airline".

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-08-31 17:45:50 and read 8324 times.

Quoting Sofianec (Reply 82):
The consolidator issues the ticket the way it was requested by the passenger or in this case the issue requesting party (parent, travel agency). It is a perfectly valid transfer not to mention one that the OK (the ticketing carrier) recommends. CO doesn't do JFK therefore the first leg must be ORD-EWR. OK doesn't do EWR-PRG therefore the leg is JFK-PRG. There is a valid and sufficient procedure to transfer between EWR and JFK on a Dom-Int flights. I personally many times would take ATA MDW-EWR or MDW-LGA and transfer to JFK-CDG on AF. Cab fare EWR-JFK is between 45-60 $ (never took a cab but I never missed a connection), transfer shuttle is 14 $ (always on time with ample time to catch a plane, very convenient), not to forget I can do some sightseeing this way. More reasons why the routing might have been chosen are but not limited to:

1. Price - in high season better routings like ORD-FRA or MUC-SOF are very hard to get in lower ticketing classes, sometimes impossible;
2. Availability - see 1;
3. Airline Preference - i doubt that was the reason but it's still a valid reason

In other words....... You didn't give a crap how this kid got home , As long as you sold the tickets!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Sofianec
Posted 2007-08-31 17:46:42 and read 8311 times.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 87):
This whole thread begs the question - assuming what you are trying to prove. Who says CO wants to be a "true international airline"? They want to make a profit moving people and goods, plain and simple. International flying is one strategy to do that.

Looking at their most recent earnings report, here, their quarterly return on assets was 1.83% (second to WN's 1.87%) and quarterly return on equity 24% (second to AMR's 52%). These QUARTERLY numbers beat most airlines ANNUAL numbers.

I don't think CO cares whether anyone considers them a "true international airline".

Thank you that's exactly my view of things. It's the profit that matters. Everything else is just chatter and fan-talk.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WesternA318
Posted 2007-08-31 18:04:00 and read 8220 times.

Quoting Dz09 (Reply 71):
There should be some regulations against using narrow bodies on such long flights.

Ohh, I dont think so, otherwise, how did the 707's and DC-8's make it across the pond all those many years ago?

Quoting JRadier (Reply 73):
How about you just book with another airline if you don't like it?

 checkmark  I believe OA has a departure to ATH on an A340 if youd like, then a 734 from ATH to BCN...

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 74):
I would if I had a real choice.

Or you could fly out of JFK instead of EWR...

Quoting JRadier (Reply 76):
You always have a choice!

 checkmark 

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 80):
I would very much like to get an honest opinion about travelling on 757's on such long flights from regular travellers not from some airline employees.

I havent been an airline employee for a year now, but I have no problem in getting on one of CO's 757's or NWA's BDL-AMS 757, or even DL's 757's when they start pond-hopping. Even Privatair's 737's are neat in my book (having flown them only once). EOS though, tops my faves in pond-hopping 757's. On the Pacific side, I rather like CO Micronesia's 737-800's.


Quoting DZ09 (Reply 81):
I don't care what you think but a 757, although a great plane, is not fit for travel for a 6+ hour flight.

If it wasn't why would DL/UA/AA/HP/US/CO/TZ/NW send them cross-country, or even to HNL or ANC? I believe NW has a few stationed in NRT?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-08-31 18:08:49 and read 8194 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 81):

Whatever. The 757 IS capable of making the flight, and it is certified to do so. You may be a CEO, but you don't know beans about airlines, or the capabilities of aircraft. If the 757 didn't have the range or capability, it wouldn't make the trip. It can and does. So, you're welcome no to fly one, but don't try to tell me it's not fit for a long-haul flight. It certainly is.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Junction
Posted 2007-08-31 18:59:50 and read 8024 times.

Wow! You guys must be really bored this week...This is the most laughable thread I've see here in a long time. The consensus seems to be - (1) you cannot be considered a "true" international airline unless you have more international destinations in all regions of the world then any other carrier (that leaves out all U.S airlines), (2) fly exclusively a widbody fleet on all international routes (that leave out all U.S. airlines), and (3) have all international employees speak English (that leaves out all U.S airlines). I think I even saw some say US Airways cannot be considered an international carrier even though they serve at lease 19 destinations in Europe with their own metal. WTF?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: FUN2FLY
Posted 2007-08-31 19:22:15 and read 7984 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 80):
I would very much like to get an honest opinion about travelling on 757's on such long flights from regular travellers not from some airline employees.

At 70% capacity, it's a nice ride with an empty middle seat. 100% capacity, it's tight. Same for a widebody.

CO will soon have AVOD in the 752's which beats many aircraft, and the same staff as any widebody plane. So, the only real difference is the extra aisle in Y. Actually, I find that my seatmates make more of a difference on the trip vs. the plane.

I was once a narrowbody basher, but now a few trips on the 757 have made me indifferent. I'd rather cut out a stop and save 2-3 hours and skip a potential mis-connection anytime. Many times, I take the train from a remote location to one of the secondary 752 departure points just to eliminate a stop. For those who detest the 752 on TATL flights, figure another 10 years of the 757 in-service and it will either be replaced by widebodies or a new aircraft.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: JRadier
Posted 2007-08-31 19:37:43 and read 7968 times.

Quoting Junction (Reply 92):
Wow! You guys must be really bored this week...

It seems to be pretty accurate, however you left out 4) You're not a true international airline if you don't serve HEL

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Evan767
Posted 2007-08-31 19:59:24 and read 7924 times.

Quoting FUN2FLY (Reply 93):
CO will soon have AVOD in the 752's which beats many aircraft, and the same staff as any widebody plane. So, the only real difference is the extra aisle in Y.

Actually, the difference is a 2-in-3 chance of getting a shitty seat on the 752, compared to a 1 in 7 chance of getting a shitty seat on a 762, 763, or 764. IMO, window seats on the 757/737 are just as bad as the middle seats. I usually use the lavatory 3-4 times on an international flight, whether it be to go to the bathroom or brush my teeth, and waking up two grumpy passengers just to get out isn't my cup of tea!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CV880
Posted 2007-08-31 20:03:26 and read 7915 times.

A TATL 757, or this?


http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1253359/M/

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: PA101
Posted 2007-08-31 20:27:36 and read 7887 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 80):

As a private traveller with no business in the airline industry :
I agree with you that long-haul travel on narrowbodies is somewhat less comfortable than on widebodies. It´s a matter of being able to walk though the cabin or about the speed on inflight service.

Just flew PDX-HNL-PDX two weeks ago with the even longer 757-300 on NW. Those flights simply were less comfortable than on a widebody due to these reasons (and the narrow seat-pitch). Also taking into consideration that they have 220 seats - such as domestic 762s and the international 763s. I'd have rather taken HAs 763, however, travelling in a group of friends, the NW flight times were much more conveniant to all of us, and that was what mattered.

However, as long as it's safe, I wouldn't want to see any regulation against narrow-body usage. It's a matter of choice. To me: a nonstop flight on a 757 from TXL to EWR VS transferring at AMS/FRA/LHR and flying TATL on a widebody. I'd make the final decision upon price and inflight service (e.g. PTVs) and maybe the mileage needed in a specific FF-programm...

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 88):

I don't think you are being fare to Sofianec. As far as I understood, he was just the wholeseller, required to issue the ticket that was purchased through the travel-agency, internet or whatever.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: 747fan
Posted 2007-08-31 20:57:33 and read 7854 times.

The moment I saw the title of this thread, I knew it would turn into a "757's across the Atlantic" argument. Guess what? After 97 posts, I was exactly right! Big grin
If you can't fathom the idea of sitting on a narrowbody for 7-8 hours on a flight from Europe-EWR (or DTW or PHL), don't. Transfer through one of the Europe megahubs (and God forbid if you have a bad experience at LHR or CDG. Any thread about CO turns into a "757's across the Atlantic" bashing!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-08-31 21:08:56 and read 7830 times.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 98):
If you can't fathom the idea of sitting on a narrowbody for 7-8 hours on a flight from Europe-EWR (or DTW or PHL),

Or CLE.  Big grin

I honestly don't see much different. I suppose it's the illusion of more room, since there are two aisles, but in essence, the aisles are pretty much the same, as are the seats and the pitch. But for most people who don't follow aviation, they look at price, time, convenience, not aircraft type.

I have had maybe a handfull of people in all the time I worked CLE-LGW who questioned the aircraft when they saw it. They ask "are you sure that can make it", which, in essence, a dumb question, but I reply "it makes it every day of the week." Out of that handful, I had ONE who refused to get on it, and I told him he could go to the service center, and change his reservation to go via EWR 24 hours later.

The rest never even thought twice about it. It's safe; it's a reliable aircraft; it's been approved by the government and the carriers to fly such routes.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-08-31 21:13:53 and read 7824 times.

To answer the question, though. CO is already a true international airline. We fly all over the world. That is the definition of a true international airline. It's a worldwide network. Enough said.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CV880
Posted 2007-08-31 21:30:12 and read 7791 times.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 98):
Any thread about CO turns into a "757's across the Atlantic" bashing!

757's are great airplanes......just look at the AVOD equipped ex-Song aircraft which fly domestic/transcon DL (something like 48 in number). Been plenty of DL bashing on Anet from CO fans of late, yet DL has more and will continue to have more AVOD equipped aircraft than CO for the foreseeable future (about 100 aircraft by this time next year). My point is there are reasons to fly(or not fly) either carrier....DL's big minus is the JFK terminal and ATC delays in/out of same. Other than the narrow body factor on many of CO's European network, CO has a great product in Business First, but that's only part of the picture. Good for the PTV's coming in CO's 757's, but DL already has 'em. DL needs to retrofit the 767-300 economy class with the PTV's to stay competitive, better now than later.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CV880
Posted 2007-08-31 21:33:42 and read 7787 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 101):
To answer the question, though. CO is already a true international airline. We fly all over the world. That is the definition of a true international airline. It's a worldwide network. Enough said.

Yep, and UA has it over anyone else at the moment. They just need to better manage what they have.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: 757co777
Posted 2007-08-31 21:34:28 and read 7785 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 2):
Who wants to fly 6++ hours in a 757?

I am quite sure that there are those out there willing to, especially if it was all business class.

Any chance of CO or any other US carrier making "all business 757s" to compete with EOS or L'Avion?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: St530
Posted 2007-08-31 21:40:39 and read 7771 times.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 65):
Quoting Jyatlantic (Reply 58):
If only Continental had a real International First Class product, and not business/first hybrid (yuck!)


Why do you need a real international First product? A lot of European airlines (KL, OY etc), CO, NW have been flying with just businessclass on international flights, and it works.

Not to mention a lot of F airlines that only have J on certain widebody flights (e.g., AA's 767s, AF's 332s, SQ's 772's, BR's 332s and 772s, etc.).

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-08-31 21:56:49 and read 7729 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 101):
yet DL has more and will continue to have more AVOD equipped aircraft than CO for the foreseeable future

Maybe that's because DL is a lot bigger than CO.  Yeah sure

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-08-31 22:51:24 and read 7661 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 43):
DL's Asian/Pacific destinations:

and the world revolves around Asia/Pacific?

Why don't you list African, S. American, and Eastern European destinations if you want to provide a fair comparison. You will find some empty spaces on CO's side of the ledger.

The reality is that no US airline currently has an extensive global route system in the same way at the big 3 Europe flags do. But DL is well on its way to having a more diverse int'l route system than any other US airline.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 48):
Wow, now WorldTraveler states that CO has a disaster of a domestic system and that its international system will be pinched out by other carriers. Yeh, those 787's with a 20% lower operating cost will get killed by those old 763's.

It's DOT info that shows CO is unprofitable on its domestic system. Maybe it's a disaster, maybe not. But it IS fact.

again, telling me how great CO's int'l system is doesn't change the fact that CO loses money within the US and Canada and has for 7 years.

Further, CO has one of the most modern domestic fleets but that doesn't make them profitable domestically so apparently there is more to being profitable than just flying modern airplanes.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 48):
These perils of wisdom

I believe the word you are looking for is "pearls"; the wisdom is that CO is not profitable on their domestic system. Period.

Quoting Pboud0 (Reply 59):
Air Canada flies an A319 from YYT to LHR once a day.

Yes, I know. But we still have not yet seen coach class service from the US to Europe on 737s.

Quoting Sofianec (Reply 62):
It's a long story but please let's leave the international flying to companies that actually do it well like AA, DL and UA.

wow. what a story.

Americans as a whole are very geographically illiterate. The real mistake is that no one managed to raise a red flag - either electronically or otherwise. All kinds of warning lights should have been going off.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 72):
I flew EWR-BCN last October on my Honeymoon with my Wife who is claustrophobic, it was one of our best flights.

I'm glad but it has nothing to do with how international an airline is.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 77):
CO isn't out to be another United, which, in many ways, is a very good thing, looking at their recent financial records.

You might want to retract since UA had a higher operating profit margin than CO by a fairly significant amount - and, while DOT stats are not available yet, they were probably profitable on their domestic system.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 79):
Having to fly on a 757 and wanting to fly on 757 across the atlantic are 2 different things.

again, has nothing to do with being international or not. The 757 is not as comfortable on a long flight as a widebody (doesn't matter if it's to Hawaii or Europe) but it is capable of making the flight.

Quoting Sofianec (Reply 89):
It's the profit that matters.

yes, but again it doesn't make a carrier international. AZ is not profitable but they are certainly international. If profit is the only target then CO isn't a domestic airline.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 105):
Maybe that's because DL is a lot bigger than CO.

and why DL is on the verge of overtaking CO in Latin America, adding to their larger overall size in the domestic, transatlantic, and Latin markets.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-08-31 23:24:34 and read 7617 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 106):

It's DOT info that shows CO is unprofitable on its domestic system. Maybe it's a disaster, maybe not. But it IS fact

You keep harping about CO's domestic flying. The bottom line is that CO is a profitable airline, which is more than you can say about DAL. ( CO has a 3.4% profit margin, and DAL has a -2.6% profit margin) I don't know where DAL is making money but I guess it's not enough to offset the amount they are loosing.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-08-31 23:24:51 and read 7617 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 106):
Why don't you list African, S. American, and Eastern European destinations if you want to provide a fair comparison. You will find some empty spaces on CO's side of the ledger.

You stated DL has the most International destinations of the US carriers, which is wrong CO has the most International destinations. The Asia Pacific rim is one place where CO serves more destinations than AA, UAL, NWA or DL.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 106):
I'm glad but it has nothing to do with how international an airline is.

I was obviously responding to a poster who was commenting on trans-Atlantic 757s for which I have a differing experience to which I was relaying. DL is getting into the Trans-Atlantic 757 market, as have AA and NWA. Which reminds me of one of my favorite CO Ads. "Imitation is the sincerest way of saying we're better".

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: MasseyBrown
Posted 2007-08-31 23:27:46 and read 7613 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 106):
UA had a higher operating profit margin than CO by a fairly significant amount

As discussed with you in another thread, operating margins aren't the best way to compare airline profitability since the number varies so much based on leases (an operating cost) vs aircraft purchase debt (a non-operating cost). Operating profit is, however, a good way to judge a single company's performance in one period compared to another period, i.e., it shows whether the company doing better or worse.

If you look at more inclusive numbers, UA's return on assets (ROA) is ($274 net/$25,665 assets) 1.0676% while CO's is ($228/$12,443) 1.832%; UA's return on equity is ($274 net/$2,311 equity) 11.856%, while CO's is ($228/$950) 24.00%. All numbers in millions.

Here again, however, the return on equity numbers are deceptive because UA's equity is artificially high as a result of asset inflation in bankruptcy and CO's equity is low because it absorbed 5 years of losses.

So maybe ROA is the best current measure for comparison, even though UA's assets are almost 50% intangible. This comparison says that a dollar of Continental assets earns about 71.5% more than a dollar of UA assets. That is a fairly impressive difference.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-08-31 23:53:12 and read 7584 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 106):
The reality is that no US airline currently has an extensive global route system in the same way at the big 3 Europe flags do.

That may be, but the Big 3 European flags don't have to worry about serving a domestic market the size of the United States, either. They're almost fully international. They're two different entities entirely.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 106):
You might want to retract since UA had a higher operating profit margin than CO by a fairly significant amount - and, while DOT stats are not available yet, they were probably profitable on their domestic system.

All I need to know is that in the last 5 years, CO has been much healthier financially than UA. UA has been through bankruptcy, and has absorbed some monstrous financial losses. Their employees have taken far greater pay cuts than those at CO. CO has been, and still is, a much healthier airline than UA has been since 2001.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-09-01 00:00:40 and read 7570 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 110):
All I need to know is that in the last 5 years, CO has been much healthier financially than UA. UA has been through bankruptcy, and has absorbed some monstrous financial losses. Their employees have taken far greater pay cuts than those at CO. CO has been, and still is, a much healthier airline than UA has been since 2001.

Amen

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Evan767
Posted 2007-09-01 02:43:35 and read 7481 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 108):
The Asia Pacific rim

In my opinon, "Asia" and "The Pacific Rim" AKA "Oceania", are two totally different categories. You can't try to mix up words to try and make it look like CO is big in Asia.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-09-01 03:53:49 and read 7417 times.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 107):
You keep harping about CO's domestic flying. The bottom line is that CO is a profitable airline, which is more than you can say about DAL

But they have not been as profitable of late as other airlines because their domestic system is not profitable. Just admit it - CO has a problem making its domestic work. No one denied that other airlines lost money in particular regions of the world when there was no shortage of a.net attacks on those airlines - including the ones against UA in this thread. I am not a huge fan of UA but they have managed to turn their system around - all of it - and are rewarding financial rewards much greater than CO's - even adjusted for their size.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 108):
You stated DL has the most International destinations of the US carriers, which is wrong CO has the most International destinations.

No, I stated DL has the most worldwide destinations. The US IS part of the world.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 108):
"Imitation is the sincerest way of saying we're better".

how ironic. DL is acquiring the ex-TW 757s from AA who flew the Atlantic with narrowbodies long before you were born - or CO even thought about a 757 route across the Atlantic. So who is copying who?

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 109):
So maybe ROA is the best current measure for comparison, even though UA's assets are almost 50% intangible. This comparison says that a dollar of Continental assets earns about 71.5% more than a dollar of UA assets. That is a fairly impressive difference.

There are a heck of alot of measures that could be used but CO is simply not performing as well in overall metrics against other US network airlines at present. CO didn't drop as low as other carriers but it also hasn't risen as high either. If only they could get that domestic system to work....

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 110):
That may be, but the Big 3 European flags don't have to worry about serving a domestic market the size of the United States, either. They're almost fully international. They're two different entities entirely.



Quoting Evan767 (Reply 112):
.



But some US airlines DO make money flying domestically... DL and NW have historically garnered more profit from their domestic systems than from international flying. Which should make it all the more scary for CO if there are carriers that can make money THROUGHOUT their route systems.

In my opinon, "Asia" and "The Pacific Rim" AKA "Oceania", are two totally different categories. You can't try to mix up words to try and make it look like CO is big in Asia.


while I'm certainly not slamming STT, most Americans couldn't put names on half of the countries in Asia,other than the big ones, let alone assign them to the right geographic groupings.

[Edited 2007-09-01 03:56:21]

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-09-01 03:57:52 and read 7411 times.

sorry...we're having font issues.... the oversized font is not intended.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CALMSP
Posted 2007-09-01 06:02:19 and read 7308 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 81):

is a 737 okay from EWR-SEA??

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-09-01 06:08:43 and read 7302 times.

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 115):
is a 737 okay from EWR-SEA??

Of course not! Anything over 5 or 6 hours should be a WIDEBODY! Even if it means going out with empty seats; losing money; not using your assets wisely. You know-things that makes sense.  Yeah sure

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2007-09-01 09:40:11 and read 7215 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 113):
Quoting STT757 (Reply 108):
"Imitation is the sincerest way of saying we're better".

how ironic. DL is acquiring the ex-TW 757s from AA who flew the Atlantic with narrowbodies long before you were born - or CO even thought about a 757 route across the Atlantic. So who is copying who?

That comment is totally misleading. TWA received its first 757 in July 1996, years after STT757 was born. Of course TWA flew narrowbodies and props across the pond as they flew TATL years before you were born, WorldTraveler. Once there were only narrowbodies and before that props that flew TATLnon-stop, including LON-SFO in 23+ hours (Lockheed Starliner) .

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 113):
Quoting STT757 (Reply 108):
"Imitation is the sincerest way of saying we're better".

That quote is correct as CO started major airline use of 757 aircraft TATL and it still makes sense, enough sense for DL to undoubtedly do it in the near future. Imitation by moving 764's international, imitation by buying 738s for domestic to get the yield up, imitation is adding more international service and I understand imitation by even hiring CO schedulers.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: MasseyBrown
Posted 2007-09-01 15:43:05 and read 7084 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 113):
There are a heck of alot of measures that could be used but CO is simply not performing as well in overall metrics against other US network airlines at present.

Let's see .... first I say, "Cite some facts please." And then you say, "They are commonly known; look them up yourself." And then I say, "You can't cite them because you don't know them." And then you say something prissy and insulting about my lack of knowledge. And then I laugh.

So let's move right to reply #6. Your serve.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: TrvlnMan
Posted 2007-09-01 17:13:21 and read 7027 times.

Quoting Dz09 (Reply 71):
There should be some regulations against using narrow bodies on such long flights.

Here we go with the "regulations" crap...  Embarrassment

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: AA767LOVER
Posted 2007-09-01 17:29:59 and read 7008 times.

CO is not only short for COntinental. But it is also short for COmpetent. Good work CO!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: 747fan
Posted 2007-09-01 17:36:09 and read 7006 times.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 101):
DL needs to retrofit the 767-300 economy class with the PTV's to stay competitive, better now than later.

 checkmark  The reason they haven't done so (and aren't in the near future) is due to weight issues. Delta flies some of the longest 763ER routes (ATL-ATH, ATL-SVO, JFK-IST, etc.) and they think PTV's will add to much unnecessary weight to the planes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the reason they don't have PTV's on 763ER's in Y.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 99):
Or CLE.

I knew I was leaving an airport out...  Smile

Quoting CV880 (Reply 101):
757's are great airplanes......just look at the AVOD equipped ex-Song aircraft which fly domestic/transcon DL (something like 48 in number).



Quoting CV880 (Reply 101):
Other than the narrow body factor on many of CO's European network, CO has a great product in Business First

The 757 truly is a one-of-a-kind aircraft. It is right at home on relatively high-density, short-haul flights <1 hour long, and is equally at home on an 8 hour trip across the Atlantic. Overall, from NYC-Europe, CO does have a better intl. product in coach. Business First is basically the same on the 757 as the 767/777, just the seats don't recline quite as far - you still get AVOD and the same great CO service.  Smile

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 99):
I had ONE who refused to get on it

Interesting. I bet he/she wouldn't have refused to fly that same plane on EWR-LAX, which can sometimes be only 1 hour shorter than CLE-LGW. Must be something about flying over water...

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-09-01 19:28:43 and read 6951 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 99):
are you sure that can make it",



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 106):
Quoting DZ09 (Reply 79):
Having to fly on a 757 and wanting to fly on 757 across the atlantic are 2 different things.

again, has nothing to do with being international or not. The 757 is not as comfortable on a long flight as a widebody (doesn't matter if it's to Hawaii or Europe) but it is capable of making the flight.

Nobody said it is not capable of flying 8 hours. An 8 hours flight on a 757 is comparable to an 8 hour ride on a greyhound bus, and that is not right. The fact is that CO makes its money on businessfirst seats and who cares about the cattle class. The businessFirst Class was indeed full on my trip.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-09-01 19:34:39 and read 6939 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 116):
Quoting CALMSP (Reply 115):
is a 737 okay from EWR-SEA??

Of course not! Anything over 5 or 6 hours should be a WIDEBODY! Even if it means going out with empty seats; losing money; not using your assets wisely. You know-things that makes sense.

There is a big difference between a 6 hour flight and an 8 hour one. What's the difference in capacity between a 762 and a 752? You want to experience a true international airline you should then try Emirates. You'll discover what flying is all about.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-09-01 19:41:58 and read 6924 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 122):
Nobody said it is not capable of flying 8 hours.

You said it was not fit for such flying. Same thing. It is fit. It is capable. No law is needed because you don't like the fact it fllies longs routes. That's your right, but do not say it isn't fit or capable for such flying. It obviously is.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 122):
An 8 hours flight on a 757 is comparable to an 8 hour ride on a greyhound bus, and that is not right. The

Your opinion only. Try sitting on a 767 with each seat completely filled. It's still crammed, and still uncomfortable in coach.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 122):
The fact is that CO makes its money on businessfirst seats and who cares about the cattle class. The businessFirst Class was indeed full on my trip.

B/F was full for a reason. It's a good product, and indeed does drive the profit on CO's international flights. Coach is coach. It isn't about not caring, but a full 757 and a full 767 are still full, aren't they? Or is your beef not with the aircraft, but that fact you have to sit in coach on it?

Sorry, but I can take 7 hours in a 757, especially on an overnight flight. I'll simply sleep as much as I can onboard. Big deal. It isn't the end of the world. Deal with it.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-09-01 19:48:31 and read 6913 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 123):
There is a big difference between a 6 hour flight and an 8 hour one.

Really!? Yeah I think 2 hours.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 123):
You want to experience a true international airline you should then try Emirates. You'll discover what flying is all about.

OK the next time I want to get to BCN non-stop from EWR I'll give Emirates a try.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: CV880
Posted 2007-09-01 19:50:18 and read 6912 times.

Quoting 747fan (Reply 121):
checkmark The reason they haven't done so (and aren't in the near future) is due to weight issues. Delta flies some of the longest 763ER routes (ATL-ATH, ATL-SVO, JFK-IST, etc.) and they think PTV's will add to much unnecessary weight to the planes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the reason they don't have PTV's on 763ER's in Y.

I could be wrong, but think it's more of a overhaul issue at present. The 764's and 738 transcons have a higher priority at the moment for the PTV's. I believe, reading somewhere else, that the intent is to eventually convert all international aircraft, but the timeline for finish is probably sometime in 2009/10. The 764's have more quirky weight/balance issues than the 763's when fully loaded.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-09-01 19:55:41 and read 6899 times.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 125):
Quoting DZ09 (Reply 123):
There is a big difference between a 6 hour flight and an 8 hour one.

Really!? Yeah I think 2 hours.

very funny.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 125):
Quoting DZ09 (Reply 123):
You want to experience a true international airline you should then try Emirates. You'll discover what flying is all about.

OK the next time I want to get to BCN non-stop from EWR I'll give Emirates a try.

I would love to have that choice. I'll take EK over any lousy US airline any day.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airl
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-09-01 21:02:55 and read 6850 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 123):
What's the difference in capacity between a 762 and a 752?

They are the same capacity, the 767-200 has more B/F seats.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 123):
You want to experience a true international airline you should then try Emirates. You'll discover what flying is all about.

If you want to fly nonstop from the NY area to the most International Destinations you fly CO, if you want to stop in the UAE and add several hours to you trip then EK is your best choice.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-09-01 21:10:27 and read 6840 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 127):
I would love to have that choice. I'll take EK over any lousy US airline any day.



Quoting STT757 (Reply 128):
If you want to fly nonstop from the NY area to the most International Destinations you fly CO, if you want to stop in the UAE and add several hours to you trip then EK is your best choice.

Like I said before YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE. You just have to prioritize your values.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-09-01 21:21:16 and read 6831 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 128):
If you want to fly nonstop from the NY area to the most International Destinations you fly CO, if you want to stop in the UAE and add several hours to you trip then EK is your best choice.

Who said anything about making a stop in the UAE. I took 3 trips to Ham in August with EK from JFK and I would love to see EK fly to more destinations in Europe from the US. My choice was between an EK A340-500 and a CO 757. The hard choice was between driving 15 minutes to EWR or 45 minutes to JFK. A longer drive was still worth it, especially after treating myself to a nice gourmet meal at the EK lounge and an exceptional flying experience. Yes I am talking about economy class. It would not be fair to CO to even mention EK business or first class.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: TrvlnMan
Posted 2007-09-01 21:33:04 and read 6819 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 130):
The hard choice was between driving 15 minutes to EWR or 45 minutes to JFK

Good - next time take the 45 minute drive again and spare us your double-talk..... it's getting boring. If CO is so awful, why would you even consider the 15 minute drive?????

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-09-01 21:36:42 and read 6814 times.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 129):
Quoting STT757 (Reply 128):
If you want to fly nonstop from the NY area to the most International Destinations you fly CO, if you want to stop in the UAE and add several hours to you trip then EK is your best choice.

Like I said before YOU ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE. You just have to prioritize your values.

Like I said in my previous post, I had a choice when flying to Ham and I picked the much better company. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have that same choice to other destinations in Europe. We live in a global economy where we import just about anything from China and we outsource most of our jobs to India, so why not let companies like Ek, with such a superior product, operate to the US from more cities in Europe, thus giving the consumer more and better choices than taking an 8 hours flight packed like sardines in a narrow aluminum tube. This mentality of take it or leave it has got to stop. It is simply not the American way.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: TrvlnMan
Posted 2007-09-01 21:52:50 and read 6790 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 132):
so why not let companies like Ek, with such a superior product, operate to the US from more cities in Europe, thus giving the consumer more and better choices than taking an 8 hours flight packed like sardines in a narrow aluminum tube.


What's the difference between a full 752 and a full 762??? If both are full, you're still packed in with 174 or 173 other flying sardines.  

[Edited 2007-09-01 22:02:06]

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-09-01 21:57:23 and read 6780 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 132):
Like I said in my previous post, I had a choice when flying to Ham and I picked the much better company. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have that same choice to other destinations in Europe. We live in a global economy where we import just about anything from China and we outsource most of our jobs to India, so why not let companies like Ek, with such a superior product, operate to the US from more cities in Europe, thus giving the consumer more and better choices than taking an 8 hours flight packed like sardines in a narrow aluminum tube. This mentality of take it or leave it has got to stop. It is simply not the American way.

So what's stopping them (or you)? Stop your babbling and take your $ elsewhere.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-09-01 21:59:00 and read 6778 times.

Quoting TrvlnMan (Reply 133):
What's the difference between a full 572 and a full 762??? If both are full, you're still packed in with 174 or 173 other flying sardines.

you'll have much happier sardines in the 762. You're right, this is getting boring so I'll just shut up.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Atmx2000
Posted 2007-09-01 22:02:38 and read 6771 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 132):
Like I said in my previous post, I had a choice when flying to Ham and I picked the much better company. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have that same choice to other destinations in Europe. We live in a global economy where we import just about anything from China and we outsource most of our jobs to India, so why not let companies like Ek, with such a superior product, operate to the US from more cities in Europe, thus giving the consumer more and better choices than taking an 8 hours flight packed like sardines in a narrow aluminum tube. This mentality of take it or leave it has got to stop. It is simply not the American way.

Who said it is our choice anyway? What makes you think European countries are going to give EK more rights, particularly with 5th freedom rights?

Besides did you every consider that EK can't sustain that many more flights to the US via Europe? They would dilute DXB-US traffic over multiple routes, which would increase the reliance on traffic on US-Europe O&D and Europe-DXB O&D. That in turn may become complicated by scheduling issues that decrease fleeting utilization or result in non-optimum flying times for European O&D traffic on either leg.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-09-01 22:26:45 and read 6749 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 135):
you'll have much happier sardines in the 762.

Why? Because there is two aisles? Let me ask you this: how often are you even gonna go meander down that 2nd aisle during that flight? Never. So, in essence, you still have one aisle; you still are in virtually the same type of seat, with the same pitch. So, what's the difference? Nothing, really.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: DZ09
Posted 2007-09-01 22:28:25 and read 6744 times.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 134):
Stop your babbling and take your $ elsewhere.

Yes Sir. I'll stop my babbling and I have been taking my $ elsewhere.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: CV880
Posted 2007-09-01 22:46:28 and read 6713 times.

Quoting TrvlnMan (Reply 133):
What's the difference between a full 752 and a full 762??? If both are full, you're still packed in with 174 or 173 other flying sardines. �

With respect to this quote, what was the reasoning behind US, AA, CO purchase of 767-200ER's vs 300ER's, as the capacity of the 300ER for both pax and cargo is quite significant over the 200, as in about 40pax and 8LD-2 positions.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Evan767
Posted 2007-09-01 22:49:16 and read 6711 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 124):
Try sitting on a 767 with each seat completely filled. It's still crammed, and still uncomfortable in coach.



Quoting TrvlnMan (Reply 133):

What's the difference between a full 752 and a full 762??? If both are full, you're still packed in with 174 or 173 other flying sardines.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 137):


Why? Because there is two aisles? Let me ask you this: how often are you even gonna go meander down that 2nd aisle during that flight? Never. So, in essence, you still have one aisle; you still are in virtually the same type of seat, with the same pitch. So, what's the difference? Nothing, really.

Guys, why can't you get this through your heads: 767's are more comfortable and less crammed than 757's. Why might you ask? Yes, that second aisle and more overhead bin space, that's great, but what I am looking for is the chance of a crappy seat on my 8-11 hour voyage across the pond. A window seat on a 757 is just painful for me. When I am crammed up against the wall with two sleeping, grumpy passengers I have to some how miraculously jump over without disturbing to get to the bathroom I feel miserable. On the 767, you only have one chance of a bad seat. That seat is seat D, the only middle seat on the 767. Even still, give me seat D any day over AB or EF on a 757, because at least I have two choices of people to jump over when getting up. Any other seat on a 767 is great. The seat selection on the 747, A340, 777, A330, 757, and 737 all pale in comparison to that of the 767... There is a difference..

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-09-01 23:04:56 and read 6692 times.

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 140):
The seat selection on the 747, A340, 777, A330, 757, and 737 all pale in comparison to that of the 767... There is a difference..

Too bad that the 767 will likely be the next model to disappear off the long haul routes. Airlines care more about economics than your comfort.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Evan767
Posted 2007-09-01 23:08:34 and read 6683 times.

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 141):
Too bad that the 767 will likely be the next model to disappear off the long haul routes.

Ok, that's not the argument everyone is talking about. So you admit, 767's are more comfortable than 757's across the pond?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Earlj
Posted 2007-09-01 23:13:12 and read 6676 times.

They have worked so hard over the years, and certainly deserve their wonderful posture in the aviation industry. We folks living in the US are darn lucky to have them, as they are the closest entity we have to some of the superior international products. Good luck, Continental and keep 'em truckin! You are the best!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2007-09-01 23:13:19 and read 6676 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 137):
Quoting DZ09 (Reply 135):
you'll have much happier sardines in the 762.

Why? Because there is two aisles? Let me ask you this: how often are you even gonna go meander down that 2nd aisle during that flight? Never. So, in essence, you still have one aisle; you still are in virtually the same type of seat, with the same pitch. So, what's the difference? Nothing, really.

The biggest advantage of a 767 over a 757 is the fact that there is only middle seat out of 7, and no passenger has to disturb more than one other passenger to reach an aisle. You are also sharing each aisle with only half the passengers. The wider cabin also just gives a more spacious impression than any narrowbody.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Earlj
Posted 2007-09-01 23:14:43 and read 6675 times.

They have worked so hard over the years, and certainly deserve their wonderful posture in the aviation industry. We folks living in the US are darn lucky to have them, as they are the closest entity we have to some of the superior international products. Good luck, Continental and keep 'em truckin! You are the best!

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: EWRCabincrew
Posted 2007-09-01 23:21:19 and read 6658 times.

From my estimation a "true" international airline would be one that solely flies internationally. Few airlines qualify for this. The ones that come to mind (this is not an exhaustive list, just a few (though I know more will add) are EK, KU, QR, GF (as they have no domestic flights, but all international).

CO is an international airline, based solely on the fact it does fly internationally, just as US, UA, AA, DL (and so on).

Yes, we fly the 757 (much to the chagrin of some and the delight of others). We offer non-stop service to come cities that otherwise do not see non-stop service to the US (let alone North America). The cities that see more than one US airline, we offer, yet again, a choice of carriers to serve you.

There is and always will be a choice. For those that fly us, I, along with my other co-workers, thank you. We do appreciate your business and patronage. I also look forward to serving and seeing you on my flights. For those who do not, enjoy your flight and service on your journey, you are well looked after, too.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-09-02 00:13:21 and read 6620 times.

Very graciously said EWRCabinCrew. A few more details, though.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 117):
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 113):
Quoting STT757 (Reply 108):
"Imitation is the sincerest way of saying we're better".

how ironic. DL is acquiring the ex-TW 757s from AA who flew the Atlantic with narrowbodies long before you were born - or CO even thought about a 757 route across the Atlantic. So who is copying who?

That comment is totally misleading.

No it isn't unless you struggle with the English language. TW was flying the Atlantic with narrowbodies before most people on this forum were born including the poster who spoke of how revolutionary the 757 was. And I still believe TW was flying 757s across the Atlantic before CO - and they were a major US airline - who was also very international.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 123):
There is a big difference between a 6 hour flight and an 8 hour one.

No it really isn't. Just that 8 hrs is enough to get onto a new continent and 6 hrs will plop you in the middle of the ocean.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 122):
The fact is that CO makes its money on businessfirst seats and who cares about the cattle class.

Please don't show your ignorance. There is NO US airline that can survive solely on Business and First class. Economy is part of the formula and it is required for profitability on every US airline route. If you believe otherwise, show me the statistics to prove it.

It is no different than me saying that CO does not enjoy the industry's highest levels of profitability because it doesn't have a profitable domestic route system. There are hard facts to prove it and any number of standardly accepted financial statistics will prove it.

Quoting CV880 (Reply 126):
Quoting 747fan (Reply 121):
checkmark The reason they haven't done so (and aren't in the near future) is due to weight issues. Delta flies some of the longest 763ER routes (ATL-ATH, ATL-SVO, JFK-IST, etc.) and they think PTV's will add to much unnecessary weight to the planes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the reason they don't have PTV's on 763ER's in Y.

I could be wrong, but think it's more of a overhaul issue at present.

DL is pushing the range of its 767s further than other airlines but the 763 can fly further if they wanted them to - or carry more weight. DL is thinking through the future of its fleet including the role of the 767 on its international route system. Until those decisions are made, it isn't prudent to add a bunch of bells and whistles to the aircraft. And even when they do, it will probably come with cost saving measures such as winglets and lighter interior components to offset the IFE weight.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 128):
If you want to fly nonstop from the NY area to the most International Destinations you fly CO,

Although DL's list of unique international destinations is large, growing, and just might pass CO. Bad news for you but makes me happy  Smile

Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 141):
Too bad that the 767 will likely be the next model to disappear off the long haul routes.

not likely. The 767 is a very cost-efficient and capable aircraft that will be around for another couple decades in passenger service and then even longer after that. 767s will likely be flying 60 plus years after the model was first introduced.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-09-02 00:30:47 and read 6609 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 144):
The wider cabin also just gives a more spacious impression than any narrowbody.

An impression, not a reality when you get down to it.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Letsgetwet
Posted 2007-09-02 00:42:54 and read 6597 times.

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 142):
Ok, that's not the argument everyone is talking about. So you admit, 767's are more comfortable than 757's across the pond?

I never said that they are not. From my personal experience , I feel that the difference is not enough to make me cry about it (as some here do). As a passenger, would I like to fly to every foreign destination on a 767? Yes. But I realize that this is not economically feasible from the airlines operation. I have to prioritize my values. If I want to fly to a specific European city, non-stop, that cannot support wide-body service, I will not hesitate to choose the 757. I rarely travel alone, so most of the time I get lucky, and my travel companion and I get to share 3 seats, with the middle seat m t . Even if the flight is full, I rarely get up more than 2 times, so it really makes little difference. On 3 trips had the pleasure of traveling in B/F on the 757, and that experience is in a whole different league.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-09-02 00:45:04 and read 6592 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 147):
And I still believe TW was flying 757s across the Atlantic before CO - and they were a major US airline - who was also very international

Nope, you made this claim before and it's still inaccurate. TWA did not take delivery of their first 757 until November of 1996. CO was already flying 757s across the Atlantic at that time. I'm not sure what year TWA launched their first Trans-Atlantic 757 flight but I doubt it was 1996.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2007-09-02 01:58:19 and read 6539 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 150):
CO was already flying 757s across the Atlantic at that time

On what route? I don't remember us flying any 757's across the pond at that time.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-09-02 02:21:07 and read 6517 times.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 151):
On what route? I don't remember us flying any 757's across the pond at that time.

EWR-Lisbon.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-09-02 02:58:47 and read 6485 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 152):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 151):
On what route? I don't remember us flying any 757's across the pond at that time.

EWR-Lisbon.

And Manchester, though I'm not sure which was first Lisbon or Manchester but I think they were launched around the same time.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-09-02 03:24:19 and read 6463 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 147):
And I still believe TW was flying 757s across the Atlantic before CO - and they were a major US airline - who was also very international.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 151):
On what route? I don't remember us flying any 757's across the pond at that time.

1995 is the year CO introduced the 757-200 to Manchester UK, their first trans-Atlantic 757-200 route. CO received their first 757-200 in May 1994, flying 757s across the Atlantic obviously were in Gordon's plans since the begining. TWA did not take delivery of their first 757 until the fourth quarter of 1996. TWA's first trans-Atlantic 757 routes (LIS, BCN?) were either 1997,1998 or 1999.

Quote:
Date: 1995/03/14 Tuesday Page: Section: NEWS Edition: FINAL Size: 0 words


CONTINENTAL FLIGHT TO LINK NEWARK WITH ENGLAND'S MANCHESTER AIRPORT
JOSEPH R. PERONE

Northern England and Scotland will be more accessible to New Jersey this summer when Continental Airlines begins direct service from Newark to Manchester Airport. After nearly four years of lobbying for the route, the airline will start daily flights on July 15, according to Mark Erwin, vice president-Newark for Continental Airlines. The holdup resulted when transportation officials in England had blocked efforts by American carriers to serve the airport unless British Airways could have greater access to U.S. cities. ''We've been banging on the secretary (of transportation) for years to give us open skies,'' said Dawn James, a spokeswoman for Manchester Airport. ''The Department of Transportation used to say, 'Square it with BA first, and then we'll talk about it.' But the issue of access to regional airports is different from Heathrow.''

London's heavily used Heathrow International Airport is the crown jewel of the British Isles because it is the fulcrum that allows U.S. passengers to reach so many other points in Europe. U.S. airlines fought for years to get greater access to Heathrow, which is the fortress of British Airways. During the summer months, British and Scandinavian passengers can be expected to fly through Manchester to Newark and then to Disney World in Orlando. The plunging value of the dollar is expected to boost tourism by Europeans. Continental expects New Jersey businesses to take advantage of Manchester's proximity to Silicon Glen, the electronics capital of Scotland, and other major industries in that region. ''We see it as a strong business opportunity. These will be the first flights with our reconfigured 757 aircraft,'' said Erwin. Several New Jersey companies or subsidiaries have operations in Northern England. They include Rolls-Royce, which has a factory in Crewe; Campbell Soup, which has a frozen foods plant in Salford; Merck & Co., which makes activated carbon products in Oldham; AlliedSignal, which makes turbochargers in Stockport; Ingersoll-Rand, which makes compressed air equipment in Bolton; and Warner-Lambert, which makes candy and mints in Bury.

http://www.nj.com

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Toxtethogrady
Posted 2007-09-04 05:36:36 and read 6196 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 34):

CO may well fly to DXB but remember that EK is starting IAH-DXB in just a couple months - they will have a considerable head start. That is why I say that it will not be easy for CO to continue to expand as it did for the past 10 years because alot of other carriers - foreign and US - are adding routes asaggressively if not moreso than CO.

That seems to be CO's problem - their orientation has been so NY-centric lately that a lot of plum Houston routes have gotten away from them. They want to do IAH-LHR but can't get slots at Heathrow, so BA will be first. They want to do EWR-DXB, but the feed out of Houston will be sucked up by EK. QR is sniffing around IAH for a third US staging point, and Air India and Korean are rumored to be considering routes to IAH. CO has put so many of their resources into EWR that they can't respond. And now some of the Mexican carriers are hinting at poaching on CO's best IAH-Mexico routes. Will CO do more than cut service to IAH, as they did this summer?

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Justloveplanes
Posted 2007-09-04 08:07:25 and read 6129 times.

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 74):
What a stupid comment! I would if I had a real choice.



Quoting DZ09 (Reply 135):
you'll have much happier sardines in the 762. You're right, this is getting boring so I'll just shut up.



Quoting Evan767 (Reply 140):
Guys, why can't you get this through your heads: 767's are more comfortable and less crammed than 757's. Why might you ask? Yes, that second aisle and more overhead bin space, that's great, but what I am looking for is the chance of a crappy seat on my 8-11 hour voyage across the pond. A window seat on a 757 is just painful for me. When I am crammed up against the wall with two sleeping, grumpy passengers I have to some how miraculously jump over without disturbing to get to the bathroom I feel miserable. On the 767, you only have one chance of a bad seat. That seat is seat D, the only middle seat on the 767. Even still, give me seat D any day over AB or EF on a 757, because at least I have two choices of people to jump over when getting up. Any other seat on a 767 is great. The seat selection on the 747, A340, 777, A330, 757, and 737 all pale in comparison to that of the 767... There is a difference..



Quoting Evan767 (Reply 142):
Ok, that's not the argument everyone is talking about. So you admit, 767's are more comfortable than 757's across the pond?

My favorite economy class ride has been the 767. Better than 777, A330, A340, 747 and 757. It has nothing to do with the 757 being a narrow body, the 767 is the most comfortable Y class plane I have traveled to date. I think a lot of people will miss it. Favorite J class is the 777.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Bobnwa
Posted 2007-09-04 13:49:07 and read 6057 times.

Quoting Toxtethogrady (Reply 155):
They want to do IAH-LHR but can't get slots at Heathrow, so BA will be first.

CO can't fly to LHR until the open skies takes effect next year. Slots at LHR are not the problem.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Justloveplanes
Posted 2007-09-06 18:28:40 and read 5865 times.

Is there a link

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 147):
It is no different than me saying that CO does not enjoy the industry's highest levels of profitability because it doesn't have a profitable domestic route system. There are hard facts to prove it and any number of standardly accepted financial statistics will prove it.

Is there a DOT link you can share regarding domestic profitablity? I would be interested in CO as well as other airlines. Perhaps CO breaks even or looses a little money on domestic economy, but I would have a hard time believing the whole operation is negative. Why expand domestically if you are digging a bigger hole? Not all of the domestic stuff goes international. They have a lot of 900ER's on order.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2007-09-06 18:41:46 and read 5850 times.

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/databas...1&Mode_Desc=Aviation&Subject_ID2=0

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: JRadier
Posted 2007-09-06 22:39:23 and read 5765 times.

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 157):
Slots at LHR are not the problem.

Pardon your ignorance (yeah, that was intentionally), but slots at LHR are very much a problem apart from some ungodly hours no-one wants to fly.

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Siege2L
Posted 2007-09-07 06:18:28 and read 5660 times.

Quoting MastaHanky (Reply 40):
I still find it funny that people have no problem doing a 6+ hour trip on a 757 (or smaller) from EWR to LAX, but a 6+ hour trip from EWR to EDI is horrible. Guess they don't trust the 757 over that big scary ocean or something...

I am an exception ( or one of them, rather )... I was limited on when I had to return home on a Thanksgiving holiday last year. I was flying home from DCA to LAX via SLC. The flight operated by DL was a 757 from DCA - SLC. During snack service and movie shown there was a rather large gathering of businessmen/politicians on this flight coupled with small children crowding the 2R door across the galley. I was in the Economy section Door 2R Exit Row. Rather unpleasant. The aisle was crowded near the lavatories, galley at Door 2L and the available space at 2R. For this reason, I try to book DL widebody domestic service. I can only imagine what happens on a CO 757 mid-flight after-dinner, mid-movie times.

In conclusion, I prefer to take DL from LAX to JFK via ATL on widebody instead of CO LAX-EWR nonstop B757 and B738. And it is more miles for me and more Mile-High Mojito's!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers!  Smile

Topic: RE: Is CO On The Verge Of Being A True "intl" Airline?
Username: Bobnwa
Posted 2007-09-07 15:08:21 and read 5579 times.

Quoting JRadier (Reply 160):
Pardon your ignorance (yeah, that was intentionally), but slots at LHR are very much a problem apart from some ungodly hours no-one wants to fly.

Slots at LHR are a problem since CO will get them from its Skyteam partners. The reason CO cannot fly to LHR right now is that don't have the authority.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/