Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4486275/

Topic: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2009-07-16 19:13:10 and read 9939 times.

At 8:16AM UA flies a 763 IAD SFO arriving at 11:04AM (Flt. 874)) 45 minutes later they fly an A320 (Flt. 285) on the same route. By the time they sort around the departures and landings and routing, both A/C frequently arrive within 30 minutes of each-other.

Similarly, I've seen UA fly, say, a 752 and A320 within 15 minutes of each-other on many, many, many destinations.

Why would you fly two A/C so closely spaced? Now you have to service four engines and pay two captains and two FO's while putting wear and tear on two AC when you could have flown a single 772 in a 2-class configuration (or with the A320 and 763 a single 744)?

This only adds to airport congestion (and it's not as if IAD and SFO have tons of wide-open slots) and increases CASM. So why does UA do it?

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: WestWing
Posted 2009-07-16 19:30:58 and read 9862 times.

Well United have only six 2-class 772s, but have 97 757s and over 90 A320s (incl. ex-Ted).
Perhaps easier to find two of the latter than one of the former? Just a guess.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Aviationwiz
Posted 2009-07-16 19:34:07 and read 9839 times.

Other airlines do this as well. It allows for more connections than just the one flight would, as it could make or break a legal connection time with just one flight. It also works out well for aircraft rotation.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-07-16 19:41:44 and read 9816 times.

Such flying is called wingtip to wingtip flying, and really happens to all airlines particularly for large hub connection banks.

Demand rises and ebbs on routes, and an airline really never has the optimal mix of planes in its fleet so it must do the best it can and comes up with network scheduling tricks such as flying multiple frequencies within a short time frame almost on top of each other.

Anyhow, from a marketing point of view, multiple frequencies tend always to be better then having fewer spread out flights that might be on larger equipment.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Pnwtraveler
Posted 2009-07-16 19:42:00 and read 9813 times.

Ignoring that there may be volume reasons to do this, ie. you can easily cancel a fllight if there isn't sufficient volume and that flying a half full 772 would be more expensive. AC flies a number of aircraft during peak periods 30 minutes apart on the busy YYZ/YUL corridor and does so for passenger convenience. Some of the aircraft are wide bodied.

Sometimes flights fly with some revenue for repositioning reasons. Slotting of aircraft can be incredibly complex and lead to some bizzare situations. I have flown on an AC Jetz A320 aircraft (all first class and usually for charter/sports teams) when the aircraft has needed to be repositioned for a charter flight. I suppose they figured some paying customers on the flight is better than flying empty.

Sometimes that aircraft and/or crew goes on to fly to some other location. The aircraft ended it's day in one city and needs to get back to the orginating city to fly some other city pairs.

AC flies a lot of their widebodied jets that do the evening departures to Europe on shorthaul flights between the return leg from Europe and departure again. IE. A 77W will squeeze in a return flight from YYZ to YUL before its European flight overnight. So sometimes it can be aircraft utilization.

Sometimes one flight is for the normal business between city pairs. A second flight can be to gather connecting passengers from regional feeder airlines or other arrivals.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: UPSMD11
Posted 2009-07-16 19:46:53 and read 9777 times.

I can remember back in the 90's when I flew US weekly from SDF to EWR. I always hubbed through PIT and every evening there were two flights leaving at almost the same time from EWR to PIT. Worked out great if one was oversold, etc. and I actually got moved to the later one a few times after accepting a bump on the 1st one.

Does DL do this on hub to hub routes, etc.? I fly them most of the time now but didn't think they did this.

John

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Coal
Posted 2009-07-16 19:59:52 and read 9722 times.

This mostly happens only in the US and that is why US airlines are chronically bankrupt. When will they learn that, say, 7x daily on 777/747 is much better economically than 20x on 737/A320, while still providing a reasonable amount of flight timing options.

When will the US airlines ditch their model for one more like those of CX, SQ, or the Chinese or Japanese airlines and start using more widebodies domestically?

Cheers
Coal

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-07-16 20:11:27 and read 9657 times.

Quoting Coal (Reply 6):
When will the US airlines ditch their model for one more like those of CX, SQ, or the Chinese or Japanese airlines and start using more widebodies domestically?

Asia cannot be compared to the US. The geography, national boundaries, and route and airport restrictions made widebodies critical.

Instead look to Europe, where frequent narrow bodies rule as in the US. For instance LH just retired its last A300 which were used in Europe, and as I recall outside of BA with a few remaining 767 flights, there really is no major European carrier left that uses widebody size in lieu of added frequency on short hops.

[Edited 2009-07-16 20:13:57]

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Skisandy
Posted 2009-07-17 18:00:57 and read 8146 times.

Coal is 100% correct. It is incredible how for example AA's replacing 1 DC-10 with 2 MD-80s, flying within 5 minutes of each other to the same destination, was hailed as great progress and incredibly wise scheduling, about 10 -15 years ago.

For some reason Americans love frequent schedules, which gives them a flight every 30 minutes between some city pairs, on the same airline! That each and every flight is an hour late, due to congestion, apparently is something that is totally acceptable, and often blamed on someone else - e.g. GOD (a few rain showers - an act of GOD, hence all flights are 1-2 hours late).

Europeans aren't any better, Asians do get it. They are the ones flying the A380, which ignorant Americans are belittling and laughing at.

These are the same people who think that a 737 is "roomy", compared to an MD80.

This isn't even an Airbus vs. Boeing issue. Most Americans have never flown on a 747.

They fly narrow bodies coast to coast, between huge cities, where the largest planes would make the most sense. The American carriers are simply incompetent, when it comes to running a profitable company, or providing a minimum of comfort to their customers.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Georgebush
Posted 2009-07-17 18:09:25 and read 8087 times.



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 8):
They are the ones flying the A380, which ignorant Americans are belittling and laughing at.

DO you know how long it takes to fuel, load, and board an A380? Now compare that to a 737...

If your flying like the OP said IAD-SFO and your flight cancels due to (an act of God, or whatever you like to call it.... Ive never heard of that type of delay, but w.e) your gonna be dam happy that there is another plane leaving in 30 minutes right behind it... But if your A380 canceled, well bud lets just say you'd have some problems...

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Georgebush
Posted 2009-07-17 18:11:26 and read 8067 times.



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 8):
They fly narrow bodies coast to coast, between huge cities, where the largest planes would make the most sense. The American carriers are simply incompetent, when it comes to running a profitable company, or providing a minimum of comfort to their customers.

They are incompetent? Hardly. Most airlines (non-US) are state run, or the state has a lot of the stake in the company. In the U.S. it is a free-for-all and a much more competitive market.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2009-07-17 18:24:34 and read 7905 times.



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
Such flying is called wingtip to wingtip flying, and really happens to all airlines particularly for large hub connection banks.

That sometimes happens on longhaul international routes also. Since you mentioned UA, they have two IAD-FRA (744 and 772) and two IAD-LHR flights (772 and 763) departing within 30 minutes of each other.

Of BA's 4 daily HKG-LHR flights, 3 depart within 80 minutes, including 2 744s 25 minutes apart (2315 and 2340) and a 772 less than an hour later (0035).

Two of CX's flights HKG-LHR also depart 40 minutes apart, both 744s, at 2355 and 0035.

VS HKG-LHR (A340-600) also departs at 2325, so during that 80 minute period from 2315 to 0035 there are 6 nonstops from HKG to LHR.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2009-07-17 18:43:51 and read 7771 times.

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 8):
The American carriers are simply incompetent, when it comes to running a profitable company, or providing a minimum of comfort to their customers.

No they are not, because frequency is something people value and they are providing it to their customers. Airlines have to weigh the costs and benefits of larger aircraft/reduced frequency versus smaller aircraft/increased frequency. What we have today is nothing more than what they have calculated to be the best deal they can provide in a highly competitive environment.

What can be done to change this calculation? Airports that maximize income and that aren't bound by price controls or landing fees based on weight. Use something similar to Yield Management the airlines use.

PS: this is a great time for deregulating airport pricing, and even privatizing. Boeing and Airbus, and perhaps even Embraer might join them, are thinking about the next 737/320 replacement. A change in policy of this magnitude would most likely affect the design of these aircraft.

[Edited 2009-07-17 18:50:00]

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Avek00
Posted 2009-07-17 18:47:42 and read 7735 times.



Quoting Coal (Reply 6):
This mostly happens only in the US and that is why US airlines are chronically bankrupt.

Not at all true. Many of the higher-volume Europe-Asia routes feature wingtip flights, as do some Asian markets into NRT.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2009-07-17 18:54:35 and read 7658 times.



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 8):
Coal is 100% correct.

No, he is not "100% correct" as he is oversimplifying why this happens, blaming it entirely on stupidity.

There are many factors, including repositioning, utilization, fleet flexibility, aircraft availability, continuing flight numbers, etc. that lead to this. This kind of thing can also happen due to RONing, demand in the morning, etc.

Anyway.

No market around the world is as large as the USA. That we can fly 5 hours and remain inside the borders of the country (without even counting Alaska and Hawaii) is something that can't happen in too many countries. That we have so many different routes for this type of flight, is something that doesn't happen in many other countries. That so many of these airports are also international gateways happens in few other places.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-07-17 19:07:16 and read 7549 times.

Can any one imagine the how uncompetitive US airline A would be that solely if it offered 2x daily NYC-LA service with 747s with total 800 seats compared to airline B that runs 6 daily A320s in the same market with those 800 seats?

All other things being equal airline B would run circles around airline A an its 747s and be able to attract a much diverse group of travelers looking for schedule variety. I'd even venture to say airline B with A320s could derive a yield premium over airline A who would likely have discount heavier to fill its much more limited schedule while being hobbled with many more seats per departure.

From a marketing point of view, in most cases frequency trumps size.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: 413x3
Posted 2009-07-17 19:39:04 and read 7425 times.

But aren't you now oversimplifying that as well? If I can fly just one route with a huge airplane I can charge far less for tickets, so maybe having all these choices which just confuse and saturate the market more than supposedly "pleasing" the consumers. (which I will deny too I think that is merely made up by marketing depts to justify their self worth)

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: San747
Posted 2009-07-17 19:56:05 and read 7382 times.



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
Can any one imagine the how uncompetitive US airline A would be that solely if it offered 2x daily NYC-LA service with 747s with total 800 seats compared to airline B that runs 6 daily A320s in the same market with those 800 seats?

All other things being equal airline B would run circles around airline A an its 747s and be able to attract a much diverse group of travelers looking for schedule variety. I'd even venture to say airline B with A320s could derive a yield premium over airline A who would likely have discount heavier to fill its much more limited schedule while being hobbled with many more seats per departure.

From a marketing point of view, in most cases frequency trumps size.

That's apples and oranges. What we're trying to figure out is what airline has the advantage (I'll use your example)- the airline that flies one 9:00a 767-300 or 777-200 flight between JFK and LAX, or the airline that flies a 9:00a and 9:30a pair of A320s?

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Jkudall
Posted 2009-07-17 20:04:46 and read 7356 times.

DL routinely used to do this on hub to hub routes. Up until 2-3 years ago, I remember there being a 764 SLC-ATL flight and then another 738 SLC-ATL flight scheduled just 5 minutes after. They don't do these anymore. They were full too.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: ScottB
Posted 2009-07-17 20:19:21 and read 7302 times.



Quoting Coal (Reply 6):
that is why US airlines are chronically bankrupt. When will they learn that, say, 7x daily on 777/747 is much better economically than 20x on 737/A320, while still providing a reasonable amount of flight timing options.

Exactly how many routes see a single airline offering at least 20 daily departures on a 737 or A320? Oh, and you have to exclude Southwest because they're not "chronically bankrupt."

Quoting 413x3 (Reply 16):
If I can fly just one route with a huge airplane I can charge far less for tickets, so maybe having all these choices which just confuse and saturate the market more than supposedly "pleasing" the consumers.

That's what Tower Air did, and they failed. They flew only 747's on high-volume domestic and international routes with deeply discounted fares. Granted, you got what you paid for on Tower and through some miracle they never had a fatal incident.

The problem is that you often have to discount those fares so much that you're flying people for below your costs. You could probably fill an A380 between AMA and LBB but there's almost no way on earth you could charge enough to make a profit.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Why would you fly two A/C so closely spaced? Now you have to service four engines and pay two captains and two FO's while putting wear and tear on two AC when you could have flown a single 772 in a 2-class configuration (or with the A320 and 763 a single 744)?

Well, it's possible that there might not be a need for a 2-class 772 on another route departing SFO within a reasonable turnaround time. So they'd have to fly a half-empty 772 to some other city where it wouldn't be necessary, and that would be a money-loser.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Panais
Posted 2009-07-17 21:19:44 and read 7201 times.



Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Why would you fly two A/C so closely spaced? Now you have to service four engines and pay two captains and two FO's while putting wear and tear on two AC when you could have flown a single 772 in a 2-class configuration (or with the A320 and 763 a single 744)?

Because the 763+320 is lighter than the 772 and therefore burn less fuel.

Also the financing costs are lower especially if you are leasing and some leasing deals charge by the amount of take offs and landings as well.

On days with light traffic you can cancel one of them.

Pilots of larger planes make a lot more money than of smaller planes so the 4 vs 2 pilots argument is weak.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2009-07-17 21:34:30 and read 7170 times.



Quoting Panais (Reply 20):
Because the 763 320 is lighter than the 772 and therefore burn less fuel.

Also the financing costs are lower especially if you are leasing and some leasing deals charge by the amount of take offs and landings as well.

On days with light traffic you can cancel one of them.

Pilots of larger planes make a lot more money than of smaller planes so the 4 vs 2 pilots argument is weak.

All good points. but it doesn't matter to the "less frequent and bigger is always better" crowd. Because less frequent and bigger is always better.

Widebodies don't materialize out of thin air for use when needed, then go back into hiding when not. They are high overhead aircraft that need high utilization. So while it might make sense certain days of the week or certain weeks of the year on some routes, what of the other days or weeks?

Let's take a look at DL. They can obviously fill 764s or 777s between LAX and ATL at various times of the day, all year, but those planes are better used on other routes. So they have 763s and 757s more frequently, and the 777 only when necessary to connect on to SYD. because the 764s are now better used internationally, they were pulled off these routes. If they were less expensive and more profitable than running more frequent smaller planes, DL would NOT have done this. Unless of course they are just idiots who don't know anything about fleet and route planning.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Steex
Posted 2009-07-17 22:00:06 and read 7128 times.



Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
Well, it's possible that there might not be a need for a 2-class 772 on another route departing SFO within a reasonable turnaround time. So they'd have to fly a half-empty 772 to some other city where it wouldn't be necessary, and that would be a money-loser.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
Widebodies don't materialize out of thin air for use when needed, then go back into hiding when not.

I think these facts are often overlooked by those who don't agree with the concept of wingtip flights. While UA may theoretically be able to roughly replace 2 morning IAD-SFO flights with a single morning IAD-SFO 744, they can't split that 744 in half when it arrives at SFO and send part of it to SEA and part of it to DEN. This will often be one of the reasons an airline chooses to fly wingtip flights only a few minutes apart rather than one larger plane.

However, keep in mind that on hub-to-hub flights, 30+ minutes between departures isn't insignificant either. A fair number of inbound UA flights would be arriving at times that can't make connections to the 8:16 AM IAD-SFO departure but can make legal connections to the departure 45 minutes later.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2009-07-17 22:05:31 and read 7120 times.



Quoting Steex (Reply 22):
they can't split that 744 in half when it arrives at SFO and send part of it to SEA and part of it to DEN.

I agree that this is often overlooked. Smaller planes must be repositioned and utilized along with the widebodies.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2009-07-17 22:16:23 and read 7096 times.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 23):
I agree that this is often overlooked. Smaller planes must be repositioned and utilized along with the widebodies.

There's also the need to RON aircraft for early morning departures, and RONing a widebody is wasteful. Often you'll get one plane arriving at 10pm, another before 11pm, then both RONing, and one leaving at 6:30AM and the other at 7:15AM. It might seem to make sense to run a plane twice as large and split the difference, but that would mean that some would miss their connection coming in for the night, and others might miss their business appointments leaving too late in the morning.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2009-07-17 22:54:41 and read 7028 times.

The largest airline in the US by domestic passengers is..... Southwest. Thier largest plane is a.... 737-700.

Perhaps this should indicate something that all those huge legacy carriers with 747, 757, 767, and 777 have lost ground to them every year for 3 decades. Lets say 1300 people want to get from point A to point B. You can do 2 777 domestic flights and leave 200people sucking thier thumb, or 10 737 flights. Both are dumb. WN would run something like 20 flights connecting the two... with 3/4 or so being 1 stop flights. This gives them high frequency between all the cities on thier route map with far smaller fleet than a hub and spoke. Instead of the headache of owning 5 models and 10+ unique varients, you have 2 models and 3 varients. Need to put on more seats between a city pair? its 1 737. If you want to add 100 seats to an operation that uses 777? Yah. ah... no.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2009-07-17 23:02:03 and read 7384 times.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 24):
and RONing a widebody is wasteful.

Certainly. Usually at night those widebodies are in the middle of crossing an ocean. It seems that most of the domestic widebodies that are left fly between mid-morning and early evening - between international turns.

I do wonder though if there could be more domestic widebody flying (if they can fill em) to cut the downtime between international turns, if mx is not necessary.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: IAirAllie
Posted 2009-07-17 23:05:12 and read 7373 times.



Quoting Coal (Reply 6):
This mostly happens only in the US and that is why US airlines are chronically bankrupt. When will they learn that, say, 7x daily on 777/747 is much better economically than 20x on 737/A320, while still providing a reasonable amount of flight timing options

Really what are you basing this statement on? I've been flying all around europe and asia this last week. I was just noticing the other day at the airport how many wingtip flights they had.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: DeltaCTO
Posted 2009-07-17 23:22:09 and read 7353 times.



Quoting Jkudall (Reply 18):
DL routinely used to do this on hub to hub routes. Up until 2-3 years ago, I remember there being a 764 SLC-ATL flight and then another 738 SLC-ATL flight scheduled just 5 minutes after. They don't do these anymore. They were full too.

Absolutely correct .... back in the days of the DFW hub, DL would schedule a L10 and 727-200 DFW-ATL within just a few minutes of each other - during the 1pm and 5pm banks.
That's 302+149 seats ..... the demand was most definitely there
(plus there were about a dozen one-stop and two-stop flights DFW-ATL in each bank)

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: SHUPirate1
Posted 2009-07-17 23:40:56 and read 7314 times.

I think it's also forgotten that there aren't a large number of airlines outside of North America that have multiple hubs, with frequencies between the two and sold connections between flights in the system (specifically worded to exclude British Airways, which does not operate flights between Heathrow and Gatwick, and the low-cost carriers which only sell nonstop flight itineraries). Lufthansa, with Frankfurt and Munich, is the only one I can think of in Europe that fits this mold, although if Air France and KLM ever integrate operations, they would fit too. I'm sure there are some Asian carriers that fit this bill too (in China and Japan specifically), as well as perhaps Qantas, but they are really, worldwide, the exception rather than the rule.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-18 08:13:27 and read 6994 times.



Quoting UPSMD11 (Reply 5):
Does DL do this on hub to hub routes, etc.? I fly them most of the time now but didn't think they did this.



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 8):
Coal is 100% correct. It is incredible how for example AA's replacing 1 DC-10 with 2 MD-80s, flying within 5 minutes of each other to the same destination, was hailed as great progress and incredibly wise scheduling, about 10 -15 years ago.

For some reason Americans love frequent schedules, which gives them a flight every 30 minutes between some city pairs, on the same airline! That each and every flight is an hour late, due to congestion, apparently is something that is totally acceptable, and often blamed on someone else - e.g. GOD (a few rain showers - an act of GOD, hence all flights are 1-2 hours late).

Europeans aren't any better, Asians do get it. They are the ones flying the A380, which ignorant Americans are belittling and laughing at.

These are the same people who think that a 737 is "roomy", compared to an MD80.

This isn't even an Airbus vs. Boeing issue. Most Americans have never flown on a 747.

They fly narrow bodies coast to coast, between huge cities, where the largest planes would make the most sense. The American carriers are simply incompetent, when it comes to running a profitable company, or providing a minimum of comfort to their customers.

Where to start........using your logic, the airline flying 2x daily A380 from LAX-JFK is better than the airline that flies narrow bodies, every hour, during peak times. Well, think about this then.......if just ONE of those A380s cancels, what happens to those 400+ passengers? It leaves a mess for the operations, passenger service, scheduling, etc. people because they have to find a way to accomodate them.

As to the statement "Most Americans have never flown on a 747", where do you get this from. Anyone that has flown in the past 20-30 years has probably flown on a 747, somewhere.

"Americans love frequent schedules"...........and that is what the airlines are marketing to....they are giving the traveller what he/she wants. Hard to blame the airline for that, isn't it?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 25):
Perhaps this should indicate something that all those huge legacy carriers with 747, 757, 767, and 777 have lost ground to them every year for 3 decades. Lets say 1300 people want to get from point A to point B. You can do 2 777 domestic flights and leave 200people sucking thier thumb, or 10 737 flights. Both are dumb. WN would run something like 20 flights connecting the two... with 3/4 or so being 1 stop flights. This gives them high frequency between all the cities on thier route map with far smaller fleet than a hub and spoke. Instead of the headache of owning 5 models and 10+ unique varients, you have 2 models and 3 varients. Need to put on more seats between a city pair? its 1 737. If you want to add 100 seats to an operation that uses 777? Yah. ah... no.

Lets not forget, that in many cases, this is an apples and oranges comparison. Many of those legacy carriers have also provided transcontinental flights with widebodies, in the past. How many transcontinental routes does WN have?? I believe the answer is NONE.
Also, the legacies provide more service to more small and medium size cities than does WN and in fact, WN will probably NEVER offer service to these cities because it doesn't fit in their model. Only the legacies can offer this type of service, with the help of EAS.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: 413x3
Posted 2009-07-18 08:16:48 and read 6964 times.



Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
That's what Tower Air did, and they failed.

but really how affordable was Tower air to the general public? and was the general public flying as much back then compared to now? I would not be surprised if someone started a new tower air and was able to make more money doing an original southwest airlines type model, not what swa has become in just another hub and spoke

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-18 08:23:14 and read 6941 times.



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 31):
but really how affordable was Tower air to the general public? and was the general public flying as much back then compared to now? I would not be surprised if someone started a new tower air and was able to make more money doing an original southwest airlines type model, not what swa has become in just another hub and spoke

Actually, people were probably flying MORE then than they are now. IIRC Tower Air, along with PA/DL were the only flag carriers operating from JFK-TLV at the time and always full.


For those that think that the hub and spoke is an evil thing, think of this......if you live anywhere outside of a large metro area, what kind of air service do you have? If you do have air service it's because a legacy airline operates a hub and spoke system and helps provide air service to your area. If all the airlines were to go strictly to a point to point system, many, many areas would lose their service.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2009-07-18 08:33:41 and read 6940 times.



Quoting Georgebush (Reply 10):
Most airlines (non-US) are state run,

Okay, tell me all those "most" airlines which you claim are state-run?
Remember now, you clearly said "most" non-US airlines!!!

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Jerseyguy
Posted 2009-07-18 08:41:53 and read 6903 times.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 30):
How many transcontinental routes does WN have?? I believe the answer is NONE.

Actually the answer is 1. BWI-SAN. and they have many almost transcon routes like PHL-PHX
PHL-LAS, BWI-PHX, BWI-LAS, IAD-LAS, ISP-LAS, MHT-LAS, MHT-PHX

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: BrouAviation
Posted 2009-07-18 08:48:12 and read 6881 times.

There are nights when HV sends 3 x a 738 from AMS to Las Palmas in 40 minutes. One thinks why don't they charter a 763 for the season..

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-18 09:08:54 and read 6836 times.

Quoting Jerseyguy (Reply 34):
Actually the answer is 1. BWI-SAN. and they have many almost transcon routes like PHL-PHX
PHL-LAS, BWI-PHX, BWI-LAS, IAD-LAS, ISP-LAS, MHT-LAS, MHT-PHX

Are all of those non-stop? The only one that is remotely "transcontinental" (coast to coast) is the BWI-SAN. The others don't qualify in this discussion.

[Edited 2009-07-18 09:13:59]

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Jerseyguy
Posted 2009-07-18 09:12:09 and read 6817 times.

Yep. Goto http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html and make sure to click on show nonstop service only.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-18 09:19:23 and read 6791 times.



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 25):
This gives them high frequency between all the cities on thier route map with far smaller fleet than a hub and spoke.

And a smaller route system. Can you fly from BWI to BIL or GTF or FAR, etc. on WN? How about MDW to GRB or DLH or MSN? No? Didn't think so.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: BartBus
Posted 2009-07-18 09:21:05 and read 6778 times.

Don't forget that higher operation cost are no problem as long as yields are higher. Sure it is cheaper to fly one 777-200 instead of three A320's. But I think customers like the idea of having a lot of connections, also an airline is more flexible with the A320. For example if the 777 goes tech, there has to be another interim plane for the route. With the three A320's you just look when you could miss one leg (quite day) and just service one after another. I agree that flying a widebody is more comfortable, but don't forget that if wide body's are used for domestic flying they will put a lot more seats aboard so the difference will get smaller.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: ScottB
Posted 2009-07-18 12:49:16 and read 6563 times.



Quoting 413x3 (Reply 31):
but really how affordable was Tower air to the general public?

Tower Air was cheap, cheap, cheap -- and you got what you paid for. Cheap as in the often-bandied-about $99 JFK-LAX/SFO fare.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 36):
Quoting Jerseyguy (Reply 34):
Actually the answer is 1. BWI-SAN. and they have many almost transcon routes like PHL-PHX
PHL-LAS, BWI-PHX, BWI-LAS, IAD-LAS, ISP-LAS, MHT-LAS, MHT-PHX

Are all of those non-stop? The only one that is remotely "transcontinental" (coast to coast) is the BWI-SAN. The others don't qualify in this discussion.

He did say that WN does operate one transcon route. However, dismissing the others simply because they end up a few hundred miles short of the coast is silly when one considers that MHT-LAS covers a greater distance than IAD-SEA or MIA-LAX.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: RJ111
Posted 2009-07-18 13:26:49 and read 6488 times.

You can't really compare Europe to America because their are more airlines in Europe and each one is restricted to their home country. Airlines don't have the cross continent hub network like in the US.

You could have widebodies flying these routes. But it's also important to be agile as an airline, and with a lot of widebodies you may not be able to react to the ever changing nature of aviation quickly enough.

In this particular situation, had they had a WB they may well choose to put that on the route, but perhaps this is just a compromise they've had to make with the current fleet they have.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
Can any one imagine the how uncompetitive US airline A would be that solely if it offered 2x daily NYC-LA service with 747s with total 800 seats compared to airline B that runs 6 daily A320s in the same market with those 800 seats?

All other things being equal airline B would run circles around airline A an its 747s and be able to attract a much diverse group of travelers looking for schedule variety. I'd even venture to say airline B with A320s could derive a yield premium over airline A who would likely have discount heavier to fill its much more limited schedule while being hobbled with many more seats per departure.

Well that's quite an extreme example. Maybe 4 757s would be a happy medium.

This is the problem when there's too much competition sometimes though. Can often just lead to a lot of ineffficency across the board.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Prebennorholm
Posted 2009-07-18 14:34:48 and read 6398 times.



Quoting Georgebush (Reply 9):
DO you know how long it takes to fuel, load, and board an A380? Now compare that to a 737...

It depends on which 737 type, 737-600 or 737-900ER.

Boarding a 550 pax A380 will likely be somewhat faster than boarding a 200 pax 739. Two air bridges, four aisles instead of one, far supperior overhead bin space.

Fueling an A380 to a typical 737 sector will not be a limiting issue. (But fueling a 737 for a typical 380 sector will of course involve multiple tech stops and refuelings).

It is allowed to load/unload baggage to/from more than one baggage hold simultaneously. That's also what you do when you fly two 737s wingtip to wingtip. Only those multiple baggage holds are on multiple planes.

The 737 is one of the slowest planes for boarding/deboarding because it has the narrowest fuselage of all single aisle 6 abreast planes (except those insane airlines who put 6 abreast seating on a normally 5 abreast BAe-146).

The 757 has the advantage that the airbridge door it placed some distance from the nose, with some not insignificant part of the cabin in front of the door. Making it almost a 1.5 aisle plane. Anyway I think that the 757-300 holds the record of all planes when it comes to turn around inefficiency. That is of course since the DC-8-63/-73 has retired from pax service. MD-90 must be the good candidate as runner-up with tough competiton from 739ER and 321.

If turn around efficiency was a serious issue on high density short to medium range routes, then far better planes like 767-200 and A300 wouldn't be out of production without being replaced by something at least as efficient.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: MAH4546
Posted 2009-07-18 14:37:23 and read 6386 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
(and it's not as if IAD and SFO have tons of wide-open slots)

IAD and SFO don't have slots. U.S. airports do not have slots with five notable exceptions - LGA, DCA, SNA, LGB and HPN.

[Edited 2009-07-18 14:38:02]

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2009-07-18 14:49:10 and read 6334 times.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 32):
Actually, people were probably flying MORE then than they are now. IIRC Tower Air, along with PA/DL were the only flag carriers operating from JFK-TLV at the time and always full.

I don't think Pan Am ever served TLV or even had traffic rights to Israel. The major US carrier to Israel in those days was TWA.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 41):
You can't really compare Europe to America because their are more airlines in Europe and each one is restricted to their home country. Airlines don't have the cross continent hub network like in the US.

They aren't "restricted" to their home country. Any EU-based airline can now fly anywhere in the EU, not just to/from their home country. Ryanair and EasyJet are good examples with many hubs and routes outside their home countries of Ireland and the UK. Another example is LH''s new LH Italia operation between MXP and about 10 points in Europe with no link to Germany.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Acabgd
Posted 2009-07-18 15:57:15 and read 6215 times.



Quoting Coal (Reply 6):
This mostly happens only in the US and that is why US airlines are chronically bankrupt. When will they learn that, say, 7x daily on 777/747 is much better economically than 20x on 737/A320, while still providing a reasonable amount of flight timing options.

The voice of reason. Thank you, I thought I was alone thinking what you've just said.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Acabgd
Posted 2009-07-18 16:05:10 and read 6181 times.



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Asia cannot be compared to the US.... airport restrictions made widebodies critical.

The same thing with airport restrictions seems to be happening in the US. Everyone is saying how the big hubs are too busy, with very little slots.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Instead look to Europe, where frequent narrow bodies rule as in the US. For instance LH just retired its last A300 which were used in Europe, and as I recall outside of BA with a few remaining 767 flights, there really is no major European carrier left that uses widebody size in lieu of added frequency on short hops.

This is only partly true. First of all, some of the longest European flights are up to three hours, much shorter than US coast-to-coast flights.
Most European airports are not slot-restricted, apart from the biggest ones, LHR, CDG, FRA, AMS... There are plenty of options.
Despite all of this, you can still see AF flying their B747 CDG-NCE in Summer high-season, same of OA they frequently used their A343 for the ATH-LHR route. I flew god know how many times on then SR A310 throughout Europe, to LHR, even from ZRH to GVA.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Acabgd
Posted 2009-07-18 16:37:59 and read 6121 times.



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
Can any one imagine the how uncompetitive US airline A would be that solely if it offered 2x daily NYC-LA service with 747s with total 800 seats compared to airline B that runs 6 daily A320s in the same market with those 800 seats?

I thought there are a lot of complains about overly congested major airports in the US?

If that is true, then simply make it much more expensive for any airline to fly 6x A320 daily, than to fly 2x B747 and you have a solution.

I understand the general public prefers to have 20+ possible daily options for a given route, but I'd also like to have a car that does 243 miles per gallon - but it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Prebennorholm
Posted 2009-07-18 17:01:53 and read 6068 times.



Quoting Acabgd (Reply 45):
Quoting Coal (Reply 6):
This mostly happens only in the US and that is why US airlines are chronically bankrupt. When will they learn that, say, 7x daily on 777/747 is much better economically than 20x on 737/A320, while still providing a reasonable amount of flight timing options.

The voice of reason. Thank you, I thought I was alone thinking what you've just said.

It really isn't all that simple. Such long range planes like 747 and 777 carry along dozens of tonnes of metal which is there to support 25,000 or 30,000 gallons of unused fuel capacity on short/medium range routes. Their pax payload to OEW ratio is awful compared to 320/737 style planes which are optimized for such routes. Carrying little more than twice the pax of the larger 320/737 variants, the 747/777 metal is fully three or four times heavier.

The largest planes out there, which don't carry this disadvantage on shorter routes, are 767 non-ER, A300, 757-300, and in earlier days DC-10-10. With 787-3 in the tube, but not in the near future, and certainly not a hot seller.

Add to that the handful or so of specially modified 747D variants, which are configured with so dense seating arrangement that they would be unacceptable in Europe and America. They are probably there more to fight slot restrictions than operating economy.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2009-07-18 17:15:42 and read 6025 times.



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
Can any one imagine the how uncompetitive US airline A would be that solely if it offered 2x daily NYC-LA service with 747s with total 800 seats compared to airline B that runs 6 daily A320s in the same market with those 800 seats?

How about 8a or 9a, 12 noon, 4pm and 6p or 7p? That's 4 flights, with about 3 hours difference between each departure time?

That would cut down on the congestion in the NYC area a bit, especially if this kind of thinking is applied on some of the other high traffic routes out of NYC as well.

Of course, it wouldn't work if ALL the flights left at those times, but spreading them out a bit and using larger aircraft would help quite a bit.

And remember, usually many of those frequent flights on smaller planes are usually horrendously delayed anyway, so the reality is that there is no "hourly service"..

Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
That's what Tower Air did, and they failed. They flew only 747's on high-volume domestic and international routes with deeply discounted fares. Granted, you got what you paid for on Tower and through some miracle they never had a fatal incident.

Don't forget, PeoplExpress did it too.... 747s from EWR to OAK and LAX...

Quoting Mayor (Reply 30):
As to the statement "Most Americans have never flown on a 747", where do you get this from. Anyone that has flown in the past 20-30 years has probably flown on a 747, somewhere.

I would say that most Americans have never flown on a 747. Americans are far more likely not to travel internationally, and that's really been the only way to get on a 747 for the past 20 or 30 years.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2009-07-18 17:51:25 and read 5980 times.



Quoting Acabgd (Reply 47):
I thought there are a lot of complains about overly congested major airports in the US?

There are, but widebodies aren't necessarily the solution.

But if I were in charge, I would amend rules at congested airports (LGA and DCA notably) and make a rule that aircraft under 80 seats would require 2 slots to help cut down the number of RJs and turboprops that are flying perfectly viable mainline routes.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-07-18 18:10:33 and read 5907 times.



Quoting Acabgd (Reply 46):
Everyone is saying how the big hubs are too busy, with very little slots.



Quoting Acabgd (Reply 47):
I thought there are a lot of complains about overly congested major airports in the US?

Majority of US airports are not slot control. Matter of fact only a handful are.

Most US airports and the ATC system in general has much slack capacity to handle traffic if desired. There is plenty of concrete around the US.

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 47):
I understand the general public prefers to have 20+ possible daily options for a given route

Right - and airlines are catering for this desire. Frequency is king for the consumer and airlines know this to better market their flights.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 50):
make a rule that aircraft under 80 seats would require 2 slots to help cut down the number of RJs and turboprops that are flying perfectly viable mainline routes.

Why? If an airline wants to use limited slots for RJ ops let them. Does not matter if its a 767 or RJ its still a slot being used. Let the airlines decide what provides the best financial return for them with that slot.

If you think there is too much congestion in a place like LGA, then instead reduce the total number of slots to reduce the activity instead.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Thegeek
Posted 2009-07-18 18:31:36 and read 5874 times.



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 42):
The 737 is one of the slowest planes for boarding/deboarding because it has the narrowest fuselage of all single aisle 6 abreast planes (except those insane airlines who put 6 abreast seating on a normally 5 abreast BAe-146).

Do what DJ & JQ do. Open the back door, and let people walk across the tarmac back to the terminal. It's a complete mystery to me why QF don't do this on 737s also, especially in airports that don't have jetways.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2009-07-18 18:32:02 and read 5861 times.



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 51):
If an airline wants to use limited slots for RJ ops let them. Does not matter if its a 767 or RJ its still a slot being used. Let the airlines decide what provides the best financial return for them with that slot.

It would encourage airlines to have larger planes and correspondingly fewer flights. The excess slots (from dropped frequencies) would either be unused and reduce congestion, or be used to open more destinations. This policy would have to be implemented by the airport, as the airlines would dislike it.

Also, though I would add the 2 slots for RJs policy, I would drop the perimeter rules.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2009-07-18 18:42:08 and read 5849 times.

The unfortunate thing is, if the airlines in the USA decided to trim frequencies and use larger planes to keep the number of available seats about the same, it would take at least 10 years for them to be able to re-tool their fleets.

And as others have said above, there really isn't an appropriate widebody aircraft available to fulfill this mission.

So, probably for the next 10 to 20 years we'll probably be stuck with the status quo of too many frequencies, too many delays and too many narrowbodies.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-18 19:57:23 and read 5777 times.



Quoting N62NA (Reply 49):
I would say that most Americans have never flown on a 747. Americans are far more likely not to travel internationally, and that's really been the only way to get on a 747 for the past 20 or 30 years.

Horsefeathers!! DL flew their 747s exclusively domestic from 1970-1977 (except for the PA interchange). The legacies that had 747s, mostly flew them domestically because most didn't fly internationally, yet. And that goes back 30 years, to 1979. To say that "that's really been the only way to get on a 747 for the past 20 or 30 years" is generalization at its worst.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 44):
Quoting Mayor (Reply 32):
Actually, people were probably flying MORE then than they are now. IIRC Tower Air, along with PA/DL were the only flag carriers operating from JFK-TLV at the time and always full.

I don't think Pan Am ever served TLV or even had traffic rights to Israel. The major US carrier to Israel in those days was TWA.

Well, DL got their TLV rights from PA and PA served it from JFK with a stop in Paris. I know because I was on temporary duty in TLV during the transition in '91.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2009-07-18 20:16:01 and read 5752 times.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 55):
Horsefeathers!! DL flew their 747s exclusively domestic from 1970-1977 (except for the PA interchange). The legacies that had 747s, mostly flew them domestically because most didn't fly internationally, yet. And that goes back 30 years, to 1979. To say that "that's really been the only way to get on a 747 for the past 20 or 30 years" is generalization at its worst.

Hehehehe... I like that word, "horsefeathers!"  Smile

Year 2009 minus 30 years = 1979
Year 2009 minus 20 years = 1989

Now, who was flying 747s domestically between 1979 and 1989?

PeoplExpress on EWR-OAK and EWR-LAX
TWA on JFK-LAX/SFO (perhaps 1x/day, all others being L10)
Pan Am on the odd flight JFK-MIA or JFK-LAX/SFO
UA on EWR-SFO, ORD-LAX/SFO/HNL
CO - well, after they got the PeoplExpress 747s
NW - Well, I think they still had that odd JFK-MKE-MSP flight going on a 747
AA had dropped their original 747s by that time
NA, DL and EA had long ago given up 747 flying, although I think BN and HP may have still had their small 747 ops flying

But the vast majority of widebody flying domestically during 1979 to 1989 was done with DC-10s and L1011s.

I think the actual percentage of Americans that flew on a 747 is very small. To back up the statement, "most Americans have never flown on a 747," that would be pretty easy to prove: Do you really believe 51% of Americans have flown on a 747?

If you do, then you are right. If you don't then I am right.  Smile

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2009-07-18 21:18:34 and read 5681 times.



Quoting N62NA (Reply 56):
TWA on JFK-LAX/SFO (perhaps 1x/day, all others being L10)

TWA also flew the 747 on TW1 from STL to HNL. My parents took this flight on their honeymoon in 1989.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: TheCheese
Posted 2009-07-18 21:46:51 and read 5642 times.



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 52):
Open the back door, and let people walk across the tarmac back to the terminal. It's a complete mystery to me why QF don't do this on 737s also, especially in airports that don't have jetways.

Most US airports will not allow this because someone would get injured and sue. I guarantee it.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Skisandy
Posted 2009-07-18 23:21:24 and read 5556 times.

Some posters here vigorously defend the system in place now, where US airports are overwhelmed by traffic volume, due to too many scheduled departures, with too many planes that are too small. In some larger city pairs you have AA departing every half hour and UA departing every half hour.

They all are routinely delayed by 30-60 minutes, even on a good weather day, because their taxi to the runway takes forever, when the captain informs you that "we are number 25 for departure, please be patient".

If these airlines came to their senses, and scheduled double size planes (let's take 767's and 777's, forget the A380), every hour instead - all these delays would disappear immediately.

Of course, no airline wants to be the sensible one, to start a good trend. Airlines love to copy each other when it comes to less service, more obnoxious fare rules, extra hostility against customers and travel agents, but not when a reform makes sense. Remember AA's value pricing, many years ago, basing price on distance? No-one matched that idea, an idea that made sense.

In fact, many posters here still think that frequency is more important than an on time flight: It is more important to have an E-ticket in my hand that says 6.30pm departure, when I wanted 6.25pm. Great! I would never have bought a 7.00pm ticket, too late for me!

Never mind that the 6.30pm flight doesn't depart until 7.30pm, due to congestion.

With half the traffic volume, the 7.00pm would depart at 7.00pm, really.

And what about comfort? The fact is that 737's, MD-80's and A320's suck, when flying 5-6 hours coast to coast. These planes were originally designed for 1-3 hour flights. Everybody complains about having no space, no legroom, feeling claustrophobic. Sure, legroom isn't any better in a widebody, but there is more space, and a 5-6 hour flight is less tiring.

I flew 707's and DC8's across the Atlantic, and I am very happy to fly on widebodies now, that 3-3 seating on long flights was a disaster.

But what do I see now - lots of 757's. Back to square one. I certainly check very very carefully so I don't end up on one of those.'

And no, Mayor, most Americans have never flown on a 747, because the majority of Americans don't have passports. They have flown domestic a lot, on narrowbodies. And, when they eventually fly overseats, typically to Europe first time, they often end up on a 767, 777 or ridiculous 757, because they fly on an American carrier, to earn frequent flyer miles.

I totally understand that at busy times, and also due to repositioning of planes, often flights depart close to each other. But to consistently schedule smaller and smaller planes, more and more often, is a self defeating policy by the airlines. Stop blaming the FAA and Air Traffic Control and the old radar system, get your act together instead.

Example: Years ago AA flew DC10's between their DFW and MIA hubs, that was quite comfortable. Then 757's. Now mostly 737's. Soon they will fly RJ's, but with increased frequency. That is not progress, in my opinion.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: BartBus
Posted 2009-07-19 06:35:15 and read 5353 times.

But with the consolidation going on in the airline industry we may see wide body aircrafts on US domestic routes. But it will take time, there are very many single aisle aircraft around, American carriers will fly them until they fall apart, look at the MD's for example, it's part of the American way of operating a company. I think when oil prices go up, flying a lot frequencies with small planes will be even more expensive. Well we have to wait and see.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-19 06:57:17 and read 5332 times.



Quoting N62NA (Reply 56):
I think the actual percentage of Americans that flew on a 747 is very small. To back up the statement, "most Americans have never flown on a 747," that would be pretty easy to prove: Do you really believe 51% of Americans have flown on a 747?

Yes, but then you said.........

"and that's really been the only way to get on a 747 for the past 20 or 30 years."

Which is obviously not true as you stated, yourself........


"PeoplExpress on EWR-OAK and EWR-LAX
TWA on JFK-LAX/SFO (perhaps 1x/day, all others being L10)
Pan Am on the odd flight JFK-MIA or JFK-LAX/SFO
UA on EWR-SFO, ORD-LAX/SFO/HNL
CO - well, after they got the PeoplExpress 747s
NW - Well, I think they still had that odd JFK-MKE-MSP flight going on a 747
AA had dropped their original 747s by that time
NA, DL and EA had long ago given up 747 flying, although I think BN and HP may have still had their small 747 ops flying"


Even though the percentage is smaller, there WAS 747 domestic flying in that time period.


BTW, do you suppose that the people in the 70's, that flew on 747s at that time, suddenly forgot about the experience when they were forced to fly on other widebodies? I sorta doubt it.

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 59):
Remember AA's value pricing, many years ago, basing price on distance? No-one matched that idea, an idea that made sense.

Many airlines have tried this sort of plan. However someone always yelled "price fixing" or somesuch when it happened.

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 59):
And no, Mayor, most Americans have never flown on a 747, because the majority of Americans don't have passports. They have flown domestic a lot, on narrowbodies. And, when they eventually fly overseats, typically to Europe first time, they often end up on a 767, 777 or ridiculous 757, because they fly on an American carrier, to earn frequent flyer miles.

Please see above.....basically, we were talking about Americans that travelled, DOMESTICALLY, not international and whether or not they had travelled, domestically on a 747.

Actually, you if you're going to use this argument, you have to say "the American travelling public", which, indeed, is a smaller amount than "most" Americans.


Looking at your profile, I see you're a travel agent. That may explain the underlying hatred of the legacy carriers that I detect in your posts.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: MogandoCI
Posted 2009-07-19 08:22:40 and read 5211 times.

I think the original poster is referring to more extreme cases of wt-2-wt.

Of course if u downgrade 6x A320 to 2x 772 it'll result in significant loss of convenience to the customer and difficult fleet planning.

And we're not talking about BA scheduling 6x 744s in 3 hours from JFK to LHR in the evening bank, because there's nowhere to up-gauge (before the A388 came online).

It's about shuttle flights every 30 minutes on E-jets. If we can increase on-time departure rate from 60% to 90%, wouldn't it be better for 738 every 45 minutes, or even 763 every hour ? Will the airline be THAT uncompetitive if they offer "only" hourly shuttles while you can board 30 mins earlier on Airline B ?

The only way to sensibly control air traffic is to institute slot system. How does it make sense when airlines cram connection banks to a point they're scheduling 120% of the perfect-weather capacity, all for the sake of "efficient markets" ? When you're in-line for departure at JFK on a perfectly sunny day at 7pm and hear "we're 35th in place," something IS wrong.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2009-07-19 11:10:40 and read 5113 times.



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 59):
If these airlines came to their senses, and scheduled double size planes (let's take 767's and 777's, forget the A380), every hour instead - all these delays would disappear immediately.

I agree.

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 59):
In fact, many posters here still think that frequency is more important than an on time flight: It is more important to have an E-ticket in my hand that says 6.30pm departure, when I wanted 6.25pm. Great! I would never have bought a 7.00pm ticket, too late for me!

Never mind that the 6.30pm flight doesn't depart until 7.30pm, due to congestion.

Or even later.... Sad

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 59):
And what about comfort? The fact is that 737's, MD-80's and A320's suck, when flying 5-6 hours coast to coast. These planes were originally designed for 1-3 hour flights. Everybody complains about having no space, no legroom, feeling claustrophobic. Sure, legroom isn't any better in a widebody, but there is more space, and a 5-6 hour flight is less tiring.

I agree.

Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 62):
It's about shuttle flights every 30 minutes on E-jets. If we can increase on-time departure rate from 60% to 90%, wouldn't it be better for 738 every 45 minutes, or even 763 every hour ? Will the airline be THAT uncompetitive if they offer "only" hourly shuttles while you can board 30 mins earlier on Airline B ?

I agree - but unfortunately, there is a severe shortage of widebodies in USA airline's current fleets.

Quoting MogandoCI (Reply 62):
The only way to sensibly control air traffic is to institute slot system. How does it make sense when airlines cram connection banks to a point they're scheduling 120% of the perfect-weather capacity, all for the sake of "efficient markets" ? When you're in-line for departure at JFK on a perfectly sunny day at 7pm and hear "we're 35th in place," something IS wrong.

Correct!

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2009-07-19 12:35:15 and read 5031 times.



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 59):
I flew 707's and DC8's across the Atlantic, and I am very happy to fly on widebodies now, that 3-3 seating on long flights was a disaster.

However, when 707s and DC-8s were the dominant types on Atlantic (and other longhaul) routes, seat pitch in Y class was generally 34 inches, inflight service was much better than today, and in those heavily-regulated days average load factors were much lower than today. I also few on dozens of 707s and DC-8s on longhaul international routes before widebodies took over, and on well over half those flights I always had an empty seat next to me, and often had 3 seats to myself. That was true for most passengers in those days with typical load fectors rarely averaging much over 60%.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Skisandy
Posted 2009-07-19 13:01:06 and read 4989 times.

Mayor, you don't have to be a travel agent to dislike the legacy carriers (but it "helps", LOL).

MogandoCl and N62NA, you are on my wavelength and see the problem exactly.

The question is why the legacy carriers do this?
- Is it because they know that the customer really is only looking for frequency?
- Is it because they really only compete on price, and absolutely nothing else?
- Is it because they just love the low pay of ERJ and CRJ pilots?

Or is it incompetence and bad planning?

The legacy carriers blame the FAA for old radars, when they schedule so many flights at the same time, that there simply is not enough runway or airspace to handle the traffic.

The legacy carriers blame the customer for trying to minimize their travel costs, when they buy tickets in a way that benefits THEM, according to the rules for each ticket, while having their own sophisticated yield management systems, to maximize their income.

The legacy carriers blame low fare carrier Southwest for lowering fares in markets they enter, while Southwest isn't even a carrier with low fares. Look at Europe where the large carriers exist profitably right next to Ryanair and Easyjet, real low fare carriers.

I feel that in other parts of the world there is still some intelligence in airline headquarters, they are still proud of their companies, and there still are differences between airline companies, in philosophy and execution.

Here it looks like there will NEVER ever come anything innovative from a legacy carriers headquarters, anything which is to the benefit of the customer, anything that is an investment in the future, which has a chance to work. It's easier to all do the same, and then together go to the government for the next bailout.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-07-19 14:02:24 and read 4918 times.



Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 42):
The 737 is one of the slowest planes for boarding/deboarding because it has the narrowest fuselage of all single aisle 6 abreast planes

I'll take the post as not being a bash against the 737 but the 4 inches of the 320 series makes that much of a difference when boarding and unboarding?

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 59):
Some posters here vigorously defend the system in place now, where US airports are overwhelmed by traffic volume, due to too many scheduled departures, with too many planes that are too small. In some larger city pairs you have AA departing every half hour and UA departing every half hour.

They all are routinely delayed by 30-60 minutes, even on a good weather day, because their taxi to the runway takes forever, when the captain informs you that "we are number 25 for departure, please be patient".

If these airlines came to their senses, and scheduled double size planes (let's take 767's and 777's, forget the A380), every hour instead - all these delays would disappear immediately.

Not an airline problem, its the facilities and their managers problem. If you tell the airlines that your airport can handle 100 departures per hour what do you expect the airline to do??? Now if the congress goes back and re-examines what they define as on-time departures maybe we can get the situation sorted out and ground stops could be eliminated and a/c would actually take off within minutes of push back versus hours.

Just a thought.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Avek00
Posted 2009-07-19 14:10:03 and read 4890 times.

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 59):
If these airlines came to their senses, and scheduled double size planes (let's take 767's and 777's, forget the A380), every hour instead - all these delays would disappear immediately

Not at all true. On account of the greater separation distances required for larger aircraft, at best there would be a marginal decrease in delays at the busiest airports, and even that would at the expense of certain efficiencies inherent in using narrowbodies (e.g., connection and turnaround times would necessarily have to lengthen).

Airlines are not the problem with respect to airport congestion (congestion doesn't help airlines one bit from a cost, efficiency, or revenue perspective) -- the problem is an ATC system that has failed to keep up with the travel needs of Americans and for which little political will for serious reform exists. Airlines are just as much a victim of the inadequate ATC system as the passenger.

[Edited 2009-07-19 14:11:28]

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Enilria
Posted 2009-07-19 14:14:28 and read 4868 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 66):
Quoting Skisandy (Reply 59):
Some posters here vigorously defend the system in place now, where US airports are overwhelmed by traffic volume, due to too many scheduled departures, with too many planes that are too small. ...
They all are routinely delayed by 30-60 minutes, even on a good weather day...
Not an airline problem, its the facilities and their managers problem.

The problem is with the airlines to this extent. Clearly customers want to fly at peak times and need to be pushed (with price differences) into off-peak times. Also, the cost to operate at a peak time is greater. If you have a bunch of 5pm flights instead of spread through the day it means more gates, more staff, and less efficient use of airplanes and everything else.

Traditionally, airlines have done a very poor job of creating price differences large enough to move passengers to off-peak times. The FAA has suggested a legislated solution by raising landing fees at peak times, although I would only support that if it were balanced by off-peak discounts that netted to zero. Another problem is that in their hubs the airlines create their own peak times. For a made up example, 3pm may be the peak at DFW because that's when AA schedules a big hub bank. While there are reasons it is at 3pm, it could be moved to another time, although that just shifts the problem.

Another wrinkle is that the most successful business model in the airline business is the Allegiant model which ONLY flies at peak times and on peak days. Are they milking a broken system or given that most of their flights are at uncongested airports does it matter? (except LAS where they are definitely contributing to much congestion, although they need congestion there right now!)

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-07-19 14:48:21 and read 4812 times.



Quoting Enilria (Reply 68):
The problem is with the airlines to this extent. Clearly customers want to fly at peak times and need to be pushed (with price differences) into off-peak times. Also, the cost to operate at a peak time is greater. If you have a bunch of 5pm flights instead of spread through the day it means more gates, more staff, and less efficient use of airplanes and everything else.

However it still comes down to the facilities, if an airport can only handle say 50 movements per hour that is all it can handle, the airline and its price structure is irrelevant. What the airports pushed for and the congress allowed was a redifination of how to calculate the movement capacity for an airport, there is a huge tax fund built up from airport taxation which rides on those rules / laws / regulations. Simple example, if the rule were changed that push back to take off must occur within 30 mins at the max, what would that do to air traffic within the USA?

Quoting Enilria (Reply 68):
The FAA has suggested a legislated solution by raising landing fees at peak times, although I would only support that if it were balanced by off-peak discounts that netted to zero.

That's like using a fan to blow away the smoke from a fire to say see no smoke no fire. The FAA controls the movements per hour, peak or non-peak is technically irrelevant, handle only what your resources can.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 68):
Another wrinkle is that the most successful business model in the airline business is the Allegiant model which ONLY flies at peak times and on peak days. Are they milking a broken system or given that most of their flights are at uncongested airports does it matter?

Yes, but they are not the only ones, the other airlines and airport management are also, between them they schedule movements within the hour over and above the capacity of the airport, only persons suffering are the pax checking in two hours ahead for a NYC to PHL flight, sit on the runway for over an hour, and technically they departed and arrived on time, technically.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-07-19 15:00:45 and read 4789 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 69):
Simple example, if the rule were changed that push back to take off must occur within 30 mins at the max, what would that do to air traffic within the USA?

Kill it off.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-19 15:06:07 and read 4778 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 66):
Now if the congress goes back and re-examines what they define as on-time departures

When the FAA decided that on time stats would be base on within 15 minutes of schedule instead of departure time, which has the effect of putting the problem all on the airline, that's when things really started to go sour.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-07-19 15:31:00 and read 4728 times.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 71):
When the FAA decided that on time stats would be base on within 15 minutes of schedule instead of departure time,

One of the more important statistics, the aviation fund mandates some minimum requirement on times, somehow they either managed to get the poliicians to agree on this fudging or they loosley interpreted the regulations. If WN persist, eventually more folks will look to travel via less congested airports, yes there may be a change or increase in your groung transport but it might be worth with. For this thread, the only way they will force larger a/c if by some form of taxation for smaller a/c whic they will have to invent legal hoops to implement.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2009-07-19 16:13:14 and read 4656 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 69):
However it still comes down to the facilities, if an airport can only handle say 50 movements per hour that is all it can handle, the airline and its price structure is irrelevant.

The cost structure does matter. If a landing fee is a flat $10,000.00 fee at JFK during peak hours, do you think we will see many RJs flying in there?

$10K/50 PAX is $200 per pax for a 50-seater, assuming a full load. Landing fee only, not counting costs associated with the flight or profit margins. This will affect decisions passengers make. It would not be impossible to see an RJ at peak hour, but it wouldn't be likely.

$10K/150 PAX. . . $66 per seat landing fee. Still significant, but much more affordable. That's one movement instead of three. If the average time between take-offs and landing is 2 minutes, you can get 450 people out in 6 minutes instead of 150.

$10K/200 pax (B752). . .$50 per seat.

$10K/290 pax (787-3). . . $34

$10,000 is a random number I picked. I have no idea how much it would cost in real life.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-07-19 16:50:31 and read 4605 times.



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 73):
The cost structure does matter. If a landing fee is a flat $10,000.00 fee at JFK during peak hours, do you think we will see many RJs flying in there?

If the FAA uses landing fees to control movement, but that is something they do not have to do, charges now are based at least on a/c weight / size and possible number of pax, but if movements are the criteria, the only way size will matter is with their formulae to determine the max number and ratio of a/c movements, certainely larger a/c reduces the number of movements so there must be some ratio, usually having a mix of short and long runways makes the calculations easier. Airlines can reduce their cost by using smaller a/c, but they may loose revenue, the airport also will loose due to less fees, so a mix based on business principles as you mention will take effect. Essentially what we have now because there is no hard limit being imposed at the airports on movements scheduled versus actual capacity, so the fees are paid, the airlines increase revenue and the congestion gets worse.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-07-19 17:03:38 and read 4592 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 74):
If the FAA uses landing fees to control movement,

The FAA does not do anything with landing fees -- Landing fees are set by individual airports.

And no the airports cant just make fees up from thin air either. Airport have very strict guidelines as how they can price. Basic premise of airports in the US is simply cost recovery. They don't make a profit, and dont really run losses either. They basically maintain balanced budgets by ensuring revenues cover cost.

Lastly keep in mind, for the airport operator he wants as much traffic and passenger volumes as possible as it means more revenue. One reason why authorities like the PANYNJ came out against FAA slot auction idea last year.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-07-19 17:49:39 and read 4504 times.



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 75):
The FAA does not do anything with landing fees -- Landing fees are set by individual airports

Thanks for that, was not sure.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 75):
Lastly keep in mind, for the airport operator he wants as much traffic and passenger volumes as possible as it means more revenue. One reason why authorities like the PANYNJ came out against FAA slot auction idea last year.

I mentioned earlier, the airlines and airports certainely were together on this one, really could not figure out why the FAA chose that method to reduce congestion under the guise of increased competition, the ORD method was no major success either.

To be expected though, the FAA has traditionally looked at the economic side of the industry while the NTSB looked at safety, maybe they should transfer ATC to the NTSB  Smile

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Thegeek
Posted 2009-07-19 19:12:43 and read 4449 times.



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 52):
Do what DJ & JQ do. Open the back door, and let people walk across the tarmac back to the terminal. It's a complete mystery to me why QF don't do this on 737s also, especially in airports that don't have jetways.



Quoting TheCheese (Reply 58):
Most US airports will not allow this because someone would get injured and sue. I guarantee it.

You are probably correct. But in the nearly 10 years that DJ has been operating, I'd think there would be statistics on how many injuries have occured, and a reasonable extra charge for insurance could be worked out.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 74):
charges now are based at least on a/c weight / size and possible number of pax

If so, this would bias the system against wide bodies as they are generally heavier per pax. While I do agree that a weight charge is fair, there should also be a per movement charge.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 67):
Not at all true. On account of the greater separation distances required for larger aircraft, at best there would be a marginal decrease in delays at the busiest airports, and even that would at the expense of certain efficiencies inherent in using narrowbodies (e.g., connection and turnaround times would necessarily have to lengthen).

I've wondered about this, but is the clearance required for a 737 much different to an RJ? Replacing RJs with 737s would probably make some difference. I'm sure at the top end this is true to some degree. IIRC I think it's something like 6nm for 737 behind another 737 and 10nm for 747 behind a 747. Are these figures correct?

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2009-07-19 19:44:03 and read 4414 times.



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 65):
doCl and N62NA, you are on my wavelength and see the problem exactly.

Not only do I see the problem, I experience the problem on almost every flight I take... unfortunately my flying takes me from home in MIA to NYC, PHL and ORD quite often... "ground zero" for delays.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 67):
Airlines are just as much a victim of the inadequate ATC system as the passenger.

No. Airlines are the ones scheduling 40 flights to depart (insert hub here - I'll use EWR) during the 6pm hour. The ATC system works fine (when it's computers aren't down). There are too many planes trying to get in and out of airports at peak (which is turning into all day it seems) times.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 71):
When the FAA decided that on time stats would be base on within 15 minutes of schedule instead of departure time, which has the effect of putting the problem all on the airline, that's when things really started to go sour.

Yeah, what a joke. When I used to fly EWR to SYR in the 1980s on PeoplExpress, the timetable showed a 40 minute time between "Depart" and "Arrive" - now it's, what, like 1 hour and 10 minutes in the CO timetable?

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-07-20 03:15:45 and read 4221 times.



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 77):
I've wondered about this, but is the clearance required for a 737 much different to an RJ?

No, they're the same. It doesn't start changing until you start involving aircraft of 757 size or larger.

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 77):
IIRC I think it's something like 6nm for 737 behind another 737 and 10nm for 747 behind a 747.

3nm for a 737 behind a 737. 4nm for a 747 behind a 747. 5 for a 737 behind a 747.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Avek00
Posted 2009-07-20 04:28:02 and read 4148 times.



Quoting N62NA (Reply 78):
The ATC system works fine

No one, not even the government itself, believes this.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Enilria
Posted 2009-07-20 06:50:03 and read 4021 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 69):

However it still comes down to the facilities, if an airport can only handle say 50 movements per hour that is all it can handle, the airline and its price structure is irrelevant.

You seem fixated on 10 or less airports in the whole USA that have slot limitations. I'm telling you that the airlines have done a good job of moving demand to off-peak hours...or are you talking about Europe/Asia?

Quoting Par13del (Reply 69):

That's like using a fan to blow away the smoke from a fire to say see no smoke no fire. The FAA controls the movements per hour, peak or non-peak is technically irrelevant, handle only what your resources can.

You are only dealing with 1/2 of the problem. That's why they call it "supply and demand". You are saying "ignore the customer, there is only so much capacity." The customer wants to fly at peaks, they need a system that will incentivise the customer to move to off-peak periods.

If you ran a commuter train system that could only run 5 trains per hour and everybody in town got off work at 5pm, once the train filled up it would just push everybody back to cars defeating the purpose of a train system. The next step would be to "fix" demand by asking companies to stagger their work days. Fixing demand is what needs to happen here by using pricing offsets.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 69):

Yes, but they are not the only ones, the other airlines and airport management are also, between them they schedule movements within the hour over and above the capacity of the airport,

Airport management does not schedule anything at U.S. airports except maybe White Plains and Orange County. The other slot airports are under a federal slot program. The other 97% of airports are not managed under that type of constraint.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: InnocuousFox
Posted 2009-07-20 06:54:41 and read 4010 times.

I think people underestimate the complexity of scheduling. You can't just say, "this is the optimal arrangement... now go find me a fleet to match." It happens the other way around. "We have a fleet like this... how how do we use them?"

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2009-07-20 06:59:17 and read 3994 times.



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 80):
Quoting N62NA (Reply 78):
The ATC system works fine

No one, not even the government itself, believes this.

If we're talking about matching capacity of the ATC system to match the capacity of the airports, then yes, I stand by my statement.

The problem is, the airlines are scheduling flights in excess of the capacity of the airports.

Fix that problem and flying into and out of ORD, NYC and PHL will no longer be a hellish experience.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-20 07:23:59 and read 3954 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 72):
One of the more important statistics, the aviation fund mandates some minimum requirement on times, somehow they either managed to get the poliicians to agree on this fudging or they loosley interpreted the regulations. If WN persist, eventually more folks will look to travel via less congested airports, yes there may be a change or increase in your groung transport but it might be worth with. For this thread, the only way they will force larger a/c if by some form of taxation for smaller a/c whic they will have to invent legal hoops to implement.

I think you misunderstand what I meant. Before the "within 15 minutes" criteria was put in place, when the a/c pushed back, of course, that was departure time and that was the main number used for the DOT's on time stats. It didn't matter what happened enroute as the a/c left "on time". Even if it didn't show up in the stats, the airlines could blame ATC for many of the problems (and rightly so) and the FAA was tired of being the whipping boy for all of this.

When they changed to the arrival within 15 minutes, many things changed. Now, no matter what time the a/c left the origin airport, it had to arrive within 15 minutes of schedule. If it was real late, that went out the window but the flight was still considered "late". This mostly benefitted the FAA and ATC because it put the onus back on the airlines, no matter what happened enroute, whether it was WX or ATC.

Scenario......flight takes off, on time going SLC-JFK. Over Indiana, Indianapolis Center tells them they need to slow up as there is weather or congestion at JFK. Now, before, you could blame ATC for this problem, but, now, you can't because no matter what happens enroute, the flight still has to arrive AT THE GATE, within 15 minutes of schedule.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 78):
Yeah, what a joke. When I used to fly EWR to SYR in the 1980s on PeoplExpress, the timetable showed a 40 minute time between "Depart" and "Arrive" - now it's, what, like 1 hour and 10 minutes in the CO timetable?

See above. The airlines are merely trying to cover themselves because of the reporting system in place. If it went back to departure time, there might be more honesty in the schedules.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-07-20 07:32:31 and read 3927 times.



Quoting Enilria (Reply 81):
You seem fixated on 10 or less airports in the whole USA that have slot limitations

All airports have capacity limits, the upper end would be what they can accomodate at peak times.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 81):
You are only dealing with 1/2 of the problem. That's why they call it "supply and demand". You are saying "ignore the customer, there is only so much capacity." The customer wants to fly at peaks, they need a system that will incentivise the customer to move to off-peak periods

If the airport max peak is 100 what do you do, make some paper adjustment which now says you can do 150, put in more concrete or tell the customer you cannot handle any more demand?


Quoting Enilria (Reply 81):
Airport management does not schedule anything at U.S. airports except maybe White Plains and Orange County

I agree they do not but they can influence schedules, the congestion aids them as they collect more fees, but if co-ordination is done based on the capacity of airport movements, a more sensible balance can be implemented. Presently, at those airports with the most congestion, the balance is so far out of whack that it cascades throughout the entire system. New York, Chicago, Atlanta to name three have the ability to affect the entire ATC system in the central and north / north eastern USA, so it may be only 10 but its an important 10.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2009-07-20 07:37:00 and read 3917 times.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 84):
Quoting N62NA (Reply 78):
Yeah, what a joke. When I used to fly EWR to SYR in the 1980s on PeoplExpress, the timetable showed a 40 minute time between "Depart" and "Arrive" - now it's, what, like 1 hour and 10 minutes in the CO timetable?

See above. The airlines are merely trying to cover themselves because of the reporting system in place. If it went back to departure time, there might be more honesty in the schedules.

Of course. What more obvious illustration of the fact that airlines are scheduling over airport capacity than this "practice?"

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-20 07:43:03 and read 3899 times.



Quoting N62NA (Reply 86):
Quoting Mayor (Reply 84):
Quoting N62NA (Reply 78):
Yeah, what a joke. When I used to fly EWR to SYR in the 1980s on PeoplExpress, the timetable showed a 40 minute time between "Depart" and "Arrive" - now it's, what, like 1 hour and 10 minutes in the CO timetable?

See above. The airlines are merely trying to cover themselves because of the reporting system in place. If it went back to departure time, there might be more honesty in the schedules.

Of course. What more obvious illustration of the fact that airlines are scheduling over airport capacity than this "practice?"

But, the airlines are being forced into this "practice" for the reasons I mentioned.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-07-20 07:49:54 and read 3878 times.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 84):
See above. The airlines are merely trying to cover themselves because of the reporting system in place. If it went back to departure time, there might be more honesty in the schedules.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 87):
But, the airlines are being forced into this "practice" for the reasons I mentioned

I know that they are independent bodies, but in my responses I am being general as I believe that all parties have to work together to make the congress happy, to avoid the following:

Quoting Mayor (Reply 84):
Even if it didn't show up in the stats, the airlines could blame ATC for many of the problems (and rightly so) and the FAA was tired of being the whipping boy for all of this.

Cheers.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mayor
Posted 2009-07-20 08:01:32 and read 3847 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 88):
Quoting Mayor (Reply 84):
See above. The airlines are merely trying to cover themselves because of the reporting system in place. If it went back to departure time, there might be more honesty in the schedules.



Quoting Mayor (Reply 87):
But, the airlines are being forced into this "practice" for the reasons I mentioned

I know that they are independent bodies, but in my responses I am being general as I believe that all parties have to work together to make the congress happy, to avoid the following:

Quoting Mayor (Reply 84):
Even if it didn't show up in the stats, the airlines could blame ATC for many of the problems (and rightly so) and the FAA was tired of being the whipping boy for all of this.

Oh, I agree....but when one of those parties, DOT/FAA, changes the rules to their advantage, it seems very difficult to work with them on this problem.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-07-20 09:07:58 and read 3739 times.



Quoting N62NA (Reply 83):
If we're talking about matching capacity of the ATC system to match the capacity of the airports, then yes, I stand by my statement.

But that statement is flawed, because the capacity of an airport is not tied to the capacity of the ATC system (though the capacity of the ATC system does affect the realistic capacity of an airport). You can build all the gates you want, but if ATC can only provide so many arrivals and departures per hour, you're going to have problems if you try to fill up all the gates.

The ATC system is not fine. It has problems, and they need to be fixed.

-Mir

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-07-20 10:18:34 and read 3670 times.



Quoting Mir (Reply 90):
But that statement is flawed, because the capacity of an airport is not tied to the capacity of the ATC system (though the capacity of the ATC system does affect the realistic capacity of an airport).

But it should be, at least in the principle of number of movements, the airport exist to get folks to their destination by air, the primary objective then is not gate space, but ability to get your a/c into the air. We could say its a chicken and egg case, but untill all sides get together or pax start rebelling, not much is going too change.

Topic: RE: Why Two Planes When One Would Work?
Username: Mir
Posted 2009-07-20 10:34:36 and read 3641 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 91):
But it should be, at least in the principle of number of movements, the airport exist to get folks to their destination by air, the primary objective then is not gate space, but ability to get your a/c into the air.

And yet planes arrive at some airports to find all the gates occupied.

-Mir


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/