Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pros & Cons Of AS Flying Widebodys  
User currently offlineSquirrel83 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

I was just curious as to why doesnt alaska purchase wide body aircraft? 777 or 767, I think this would be a plus in the routes to ANC, MCO, DEN , JFK, BOS, IAD, ect ect. . . Cargo ect ~


What would be the pros and Cons of this?
Imagin ~ What would the paint job look like ~
Would Alaska ever do this?

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCOAB767 From Guam, joined Nov 2003, 1377 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

Pros would be ability to fly to international destinations, cons are they would need more crew per flight ie on a 777 a crew of 12 2 pilots + 2 reserve pilots plus a cabin crew of 8. I personally think AS is happy flying there aircraft with 6 or less crew. 2 pilots and 3 or 4 flight attendants.


Continental Micronesia: "Fly With The Warmth Of Paradise"
User currently offlineTransPac From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

No offense, but that's a pretty wild idea. The 777 is simply WAY too big and expensive of a bird for AS to operate. Even the 767 wouldn't make sense. None of their routes could use the capacity and they don't need to fly international routes as they have very good codeshare system. AS is a US west coast focus carrier. Anything else would be a complete rebirth of what they are as an airline. However, I think if AS is doing exceptionally well a few years down the line, they could make good use of the 7E7-3 on transcons and popular routes.

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2133 times:

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You guys are really funny here!

AS only intention is to fly with one fleet type, period. No questions asked.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6098 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

LMOA even more then AiframeAS

Pros:
None that I can think of

Cons:
COST
more crew
new gates
new ramp equipment
new sims
new training for all
few route its justified on
may upset some coadshare partners
getting away from 1 fleet type
pilot contracts
flt. attn contracts

I could go on!

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

As739x......that it!! You and I are going head-to-head in a debate one of these days!! LMAO!  Big thumbs up


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2096 times:

It wasnt that funny.

I could see Alaska maybe one day ordering the smallest version of the 7E7 (the one to replace the 757). I don't know how many flights they have a day to MIA, but they fly two flights to MCO. If any airport they fly to has slot issues that they fly multiple times to, a 7E7 could be a good alternative to flying 2 737-900s.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

I could see Alaska maybe one day ordering the smallest version of the 7E7 (the one to replace the 757).

AS never has and never will operate a 752. So getting a 7E7 is a long shot dream for anyone so dont count on AS ever getting one. Like I said, AS is a one-fleet-type airline and they are stickin' to it.

AS is going to be flying 738s to MCO, cheaper than flying a 7E7 given to the fleet planning and costs they have now. Trust me on this one. Its not worth having a 7E7 in AS fleet. Widebodies and AS dont mix.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6098 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2086 times:

Hlywdcatft.....won't happen! We are getting the 738 for Florida service. We had a chance at the 757 with an amzing deal and we said No. We may get a 7E7 offer, we will say No! We are looking for 1 fleet type as Airframe said. We do fly into a slot restricted airport (DCA) and our size plane fits just fine. Adding another type, specially one that we only need 10-15 at most, would cost way more then Alaska will spent. Remember, Alaska is a very conservative airline. I can assure you that you will not see a widebody in the next 10 years. Look for an order for 738's (with more 73G included) once the contract with pilots is worked out, and Alaska will be watching the development of the next series of 737 very carefully.

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

We had a chance at the 757 with an amzing deal and we said No..

I remember the day that ex-CEO John F. Kelly outrightly said no in an instant once Boeing offered AS for a 752 deal. Im glad Kelly said no.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2002 times:

AS really has no need for widebody aircraft, as mentioned above, AS even considered the 752 too big for their needs. (Do note that way back, Alaska place a order for the 747, 1 firm + 1 option, but this order was cancelled before the aircraft was built or delivered!)

To be honest, I also once thought that AS could make good use of a 767 size airliner on the busy Seattle-Anchorage route, sometimes AS flies up to 16 or more flights per day on that route especially during the busy summer tourist season......why not fly 8 or 10 flights per day with 763s? The answer is frequency and flexibility...AS is better off with smaller aircraft since (1) with smaller aircraft, they can offer more frequent departures as demanded by premium passengers and create more connection possibilities, (2) during the less busy winter season, the SEA-ANC schedule can be cut back to say 10 flights per day and the excess aircraft can be assigned to other routes (think Mexico), and (3) aside from the SEA-ANC route, AS really does not fly any other routes that require a 763 size aircraft.

Also, the costs of introducing, maintaining and operating an additional type would be very expensive....especially since AS would only have a small fleet (say 2 or 3) or larger widebody airliners.

While on paper, the idea of an Alaska widebody may make sense, in practical terms, Alaska is better off staying with its 737s.....one reason why Boeing developed the 737-900 was to offer airlines a large capacity airliner which was part of the 737 family, this way, airlines would not have to step up to the 757.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1972 times:

... AS even considered the 752 too big for their needs.

This statement is sort of not really true. The real fact was that AS wanted to go for ONE fleet type only. They never once said that the 752 was too big at all. It always has and always will be: ONE FLEET TYPE. Nuff said! Also, AS never really considered it. It was that Boeing approached AS about the idea and AS said no before even considering it. Like I said: ONE FLEET TYPE.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16245 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1958 times:

AS could build a small longhaul network out of SEA. Routes could include NRT, HKG, LGW/LHR, AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA, CPH. Similarly, summer ANC-NRT could operate. With daily or less than daily on these routes, a possible fleet of 3-5 763s could be supported.


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineEastbay From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 211 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Pros: Might look neat in an AS paint scheme.

Cons: the incredible beating their stock price would take the day the order was made.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pros & Cons Of A Huge Hub + Airline In Africa posted Fri May 26 2006 03:37:38 by Nseljac77
If 9W Joins Oneworld - Pros & Cons - 9W & BA posted Tue Nov 15 2005 11:19:02 by Anandt
Pros & Cons Regional Jets Vs TurboProps? posted Thu Mar 31 2005 04:13:19 by Dugway
Pros And Cons Of The BAE/Avro Jets posted Sat Jul 31 2004 20:43:42 by PacificWestern
Booking Same Day As Flying On FR Or EZY posted Tue Nov 14 2006 04:04:30 by Scouse
Number Of F/As On A Flight? posted Wed Nov 8 2006 07:24:04 by Haggis79
Future Of NW Flying For DHL? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 08:02:58 by BlueFlyer
An A.net Member Afraid Of Commercial Flying? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 15:43:21 by Deaphen
Rumours Of Icelandair Flying To Winnipeg posted Mon Aug 28 2006 18:04:59 by Northernlights
State & Remodelling Of US Airports posted Thu Apr 6 2006 15:53:33 by Komododx