FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3 Posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2530 times:
Are tech stops really that bad--that much of an inconvenience to passengers?
Let's say as an example, Continental found that there was a great niche that would fill all 170 seats on their 757's from San Francisco to Oslo on a daily basis. Instead of pay higher landing costs and channeling passengers through EWR, they decided to fly San Francisco-Winnipeg-Oslo, having a short tech stop at Winnipeg to load on additional fuel. Passenger comfort and cargo aside, how long would the tech stop take for starters, and would it be THAT much of an inconvenience to the passenger to stop in un-congested Winnipeg? As long as it comes early enough in the flight and doesn't split the flight into two equal periods, a tech stop should be able to provide passengers with the same sleep which they would find on other non-stop flights.
M404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2249 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2305 times:
You asked how long it would take to fuel - if everyone was ready, about 45 minutes. But far more important would be why stop in Winnipeg? SFO to there is about 1660 miles but the distance on to Oslo is about 3840 (figures are approximate). The still air range on the 757-200 (longer range than the -300) is 3900. That would leave nothing for the standard 45 minute reserves. To make it work he would have to choose another Canadian airport like say Gander or Nova Scotia. But then since he is not flying the polar route the fuel used is more so the costs again go up. They already went up in landing fees because of the tech stop in the first place.
What you will see is secondary level use of longer range ships as they come online. They can bypass bigger stations (LHR for Oslo) and operate more profitably. This is why you see aircraft like the B767-300er (range 5645) and the A300 (range 6450 to 7650 dependent on model) doing just that. With a market as dispersed into so many airports like the US is, this breakup of hub traffic is just another reason it would seem no interest has been made in the A380 here. When traffic builds, so will interest but for now it's for denser national single point departures to here.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2266 times:
Passengers hate tech stops - they increase travel time, can cause delays, and frequently, due to customs reasons, passengers are detained in a small terminal holding area while the aircraft is being serviced. While tech stops were common years ago, with long-range aircraft avaialble, pax would not happily accept this. When TWA could introduce nonstop service from NYC to Europe (with Constellations I believe), it put huge ads in the newspapers saying fly to Europe, no goose, no gander! Some charter flights between Europe and the US/Carib make tech stops in Bangor (or other cities) - but these flights are low cost and are sold as part of holiday packages where passengers do not chose their flights.
More and more, passengers are interested in nonstop flights, ie, LAX-SIN, EWR-HKG, all the talk about DFW-SYD.
To use your example, if only 170 passengers per day were interested in flying from SFO to OSL, they are not going to get nonstop service - they will fly via EWR and the EWR-OSL aircraft would likely be upgraded. When 300 passengers per day are interested in SFO to OSL, and other conditions (ie, yeilds on the route) were right, an airline would then enter the market on a nonstop basis with the appropriate airliner.