Asianguy767 From Singapore, joined Oct 2003, 263 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2696 times:
Can anyone enlighten me as to why CO operates its B752 on certain thinner transatlantic routes instead of its B762? From what I can tell in terms of seating config the 2 are almost similar except that the B762 has 32" seat pitch in coach. I mean, with PTVs and more overhead space wouldnt it be more comfortable from a pax point of view to be on a B762? I would think as an FA the B762 would be better to work on too. So wat gives? Is it airport runway length/weight restrictions? The B752 has lower seat mile cost than the B762?
ScottishLaddie From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 2386 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2661 times:
I'm not sure but I'd guess that they simply don't have anough 762s to use on all the route they currently use the 752 on, and so their capacity is very similiar they could use either.
Also, the 762 has more business class seats so will tend to be used on the routes that give more business class passengers than a 752 can provide.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17228 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2612 times:
The 767-200 as mentioned is used for Business oriented routes, it has much more Business First seats than CO's International 757s.
Also the operating cost of a 757-200 compared to a 767-200 is significantly less, which means they make sense on many Trans-Atlantic routes because they still have "about" the same number of seats "overall" as the 767-200 but much less operating costs.
Nycfuturepilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 791 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2498 times:
Yea, I agree with RJpieces, 757s could provide a lot of smaller US and European cities with transatlantic service. This would make a lot of sense for european airlines to do so that pax can connect in their european hubs.
777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
767-200ER has 25 BF seats, compared to 16 on the 757.
The 767-200ER has a much higher revenue earning capacity due to its significantly larger premium cabin and much greater underfloor space for cargo shipments, but costs per seat mile are significantly higher over the 757. On third-tier routes, the 757 has far better economics (on a purely operational standpoint) with its rock-bottom CASM.
CAL From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 499 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2382 times:
Sorry, your correct the 767-200 at CO does have 25 BF seats , for some reason I was thinking of CO 767-400 High Density, that they use on the Pacific markets, it has only 20 in BF, Thanks for the correction 777gk
[Edited 2004-04-25 23:45:20]
CAL........Continental Airlines....... Work Hard, Fly Right
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2241 times:
The difference in bizfirst seats from the 752 to the 762 is only 4 seats.
The diff is 9, not 4. 25 in the 762, to 16 in the 752, and, in marginal markets, that can be a world of difference, since the BF product is what drives profits on the Transatlantic flights.
CO could easily fill coach on a 762 CLE-LGW, for example. It has 7 less coach seats than the 752. That's not where the profit is made, though. CO does not feel it can consistently fill 25 BF seats with PAYING customers on a 762 CLE-LGW, therefore the 752 gets the nod.
Now, when the long runway extension is done this summer in CLE, a 762 can more easily make it CLE-LGW, and the much larger cargo compartment could make up some of the difference in not filling BF seats CLE-LGW. But I still thin, for the forseeable future, the 752 stays on that route.