Airportugal310 From United States, joined Apr 2004, 1510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2930 times:
Keep bringing those 757-200's onboard!
Why doesnt the 757-300 fly oversea's?
Does it not have what it takes to do it?
CALMSP From United States, joined Aug 2003, 3236 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2880 times:
the 753s have a larger restriction when flying longer distances....particularly oversseas with freight and baggage.....same engine type as the 752s but add more metal.....almost 40 more people along with their luggage....it all adds up to more weight (less range). We would love to fly to India...but at the present time we can make more money flying to these secondary cities in Europe with the 752..........and of course we just dont have the widebodies to do it at the present time.
okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
MasseyBrown From United States, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 4044 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2734 times:
Gigniel, remember Bethune's comment, "Nobody ever went broke flying too small a plane." Why wouldn't the 7E7 work to India?
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5637 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2692 times:
If the 7E7 could fly nonstop to India, then it could do really well for CO since they could start service to destinations with less traffic like Bangalore, Hyderabad, Kolkata and more. But I don't think it will be able to do it nonstop because of twin restrictions over the himalayas and because it doesn't have a whole lot of range to spare on those flights.
My job is to make it so your flight is not delayed. Come fly the friendly skies!
A350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1095 posts, RR: 24 Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2652 times:
Nobody ever went broke flying too small a plane.
Hm, just a thought, isn't the problem of the US aviation industry that the traffic is split between too many carriers at too many hubs and they loose billions of $s although pax numbers increased to new records?
A350
Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
Rj111 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3077 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2627 times:
Nobody ever went broke flying too small a plane.
Well, if you act too defensively all the time (fly too small a plane) eventually one of you're rivals who's been acting more - but not too -aggressively has amassed such a fiscal advantage he can force you out of the market, much like Starbucks has done to all those other smaller coffee chains.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2313 times:
But I don't think it will be able to do it nonstop because of twin restrictions over the himalayas and because it doesn't have a whole lot of range to spare on those flights.
The bird offers more than enough range to round-about from New York.
For what, aa777jr? Where would you deploy these aircraft and why?
STT757 From United States, joined Mar 2000, 12190 posts, RR: 55 Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2246 times:
CO has 10 7E7-800s on order, Im betting they are for Asian growth. The 767s will still be around for a while when they take delivery of the 7E7s, the 767s are not going anywhere. They don't need the 7E7's range to serve Western Europe from EWR, the 7E7's range would work great on routes to Asian cities like Seoul, Osaka, Nagoya etc..
The only other order I would make would be perhaps 6-9 777-200LRs.
I would use three 777-200LRs to replace the three 777-200ERs operating EWR-Hong Kong, those three 777-200ERs I would use to replace 767s on high traffic Trans-Atlantic routes. Then I would use the 767s that were replaced by the 777s to replace 757s on such popular routes as EWR-Birmingham UK, and then those 757s freed up by the 767s would open new routes like Lyon, Barcelona, Basle, Newcastle from EWR.
The remaining 777-200LRs I would use to open new routes in Asia such as Singapore, Taipei from EWR or Sydney or Dubai from IAH.
"'Brown Sugar' could save the world..." Eddie Vedder 10/14/97 Oakland, California
Atmx2000 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 43 Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2134 times:
Hm, just a thought, isn't the problem of the US aviation industry that the traffic is split between too many carriers at too many hubs and they loose billions of $s although pax numbers increased to new records?
And which airlines are more doing better? The only airlines that are doing well only fly smaller jets. The ones flying the bigger jets are not, possibly because they have to get people to fly to their hubs so they can fill up the big jets, which many people would rather avoid.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
N1120a From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23635 posts, RR: 89 Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1880 times:
>CO has 10 7E7-800s on order, Im betting they are for Asian growth. The 767s will still be around for a while when they take delivery of the 7E7s, the 767s are not going anywhere. They don't need the 7E7's range to serve Western Europe from EWR, the 7E7's range would work great on routes to Asian cities like Seoul, Osaka, Nagoya etc..<
The 7E7 burns 20% less fuel than the 767s CO flies (well actually, probably 25% less than the 764 and 15% less than the 762), so it would behoove them to slowly replace them with 7E7s as well.
>I would use three 777-200LRs to replace the three 777-200ERs operating EWR-Hong Kong, those three 777-200ERs I would use to replace 767s on high traffic Trans-Atlantic routes.<
I assume you mean 764 replacement, because the 772 offers almost twice the capacity as the 762. Also, those 772ERs are lighter than the 772LR and probably offer more profit potential on EWR-HKG
>Then I would use the 767s that were replaced by the 777s to replace 757s on such popular routes as EWR-Birmingham UK<
Not a bad idea
>and then those 757s freed up by the 767s would open new routes like Lyon, Barcelona, Basle, Newcastle from EWR.<
PRG would be a great choice, with winglets
>The remaining 777-200LRs I would use to open new routes in Asia such as Singapore, Taipei from EWR or Sydney or Dubai from IAH.<
You would need ETOPS 240 for the SYD route, but it would work otherwise.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Ua777222 From United States, joined Dec 2003, 2836 posts, RR: 17 Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1851 times:
I feel that CO has placed themselves in a bind. They have the right a/c to stay where they are and operate the routes they do. But, with their new plans they have an issue of range and number of a/c. They have a/c pushing their limits such as 757's jumping across the pond. Why not place these a/c on shorter routes and purchase longer range a/c that can take the place of the 777's and 767's that too are being pushed to their limits. As STT757 stated, the 777's on the HKG routes need to be upgraded so that those a/c can serve underserved a/c. But the issue is where are they supposed to get this cash? If not longer range a/c then why not pluck a few 777's of UA's hands. Old but will get the job done just as well if not better.
Today's economy is a barrier for all airlines and the industry as a whole leaving airlines such as CO in a crunch for cash when they want to expand. Its a gamble that needs to be thought out carefully b/c what choices they make impact their fleet and their operations which can be the start to a major blow to the airline. When you grow its either a great thing for your airline or a horrible thing. Airlines such as WN have a game plan that they have stuck to for a while and as you can see the results have been outstanding. For CO, regardless if they get new a/c or not, this expansion will create some form of growing pains, so to say, for the airline.
N1120a From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23635 posts, RR: 89 Reply 25, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1835 times:
>They have a/c pushing their limits such as 757's jumping across the pond.<
On the routes they currently fly, they are not pushing limits. Also, the new winglets will allow them to hit eastern europe. Also, most of the 757 trans-atlantics cannot support a larger airplane and the 762 is too heavy for those that cannot fill the front cabin and the cargo hold.
>Why not place these a/c on shorter routes<
That is what the 737s and 753s are for
>and purchase longer range a/c that can take the place of the 777's and 767's that too are being pushed to their limits.<
The closest they come to "pushing the limits on a route" are the 777s to HKG, and those are doing fine.
>As STT757 stated, the 777's on the HKG routes need to be upgraded so that those a/c can serve underserved a/c.<
They really don't need to be replaced.
>If not longer range a/c then why not pluck a few 777's of UA's hands. Old but will get the job done just as well if not better.<
None are that old, but there are countless reasons why a UA 777 will never be taken by UA. Just a few reasons are PW v. GE engines, pathetic MTOW on their 772ERs (UA has the lowest MTOW ones, CO has the highest), they really don't need more 777 capacity of similar or lower range, they have 764s to handle high-load, shorter haul routes and only use 777s on shorter routes when they need cargo lift
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
26 ConcordeBoy: Also, those 772ERs are lighter than the 772LR and probably offer more profit potential on EWR-HKG While it's lighter, you otherwise couldnt be more wr
27 N1120a: >While it's lighter, you otherwise couldnt be more wrong
28 CLEfan: CO does have 1 777 on option. I would not be surprised if they eventually exercise the option, especially if they get the China route authorities. The
29 Boeingfever777: STT757, that has to be the most logical post Ive read so far on this topic. You are definately going on my respected users list well said... Could hap
30 Ushermittwoch: "And which airlines are more doing better? The only airlines that are doing well only fly smaller jets. The ones flying the bigger jets are not, possi
31 HB-IWC: EWR - TPE, DXB, ICN, PEK*, LAD, PVG*, etc IAH - LOS, CPT/JNB, LAD, etc LAD used to be and to a large extent still is a destination where only the most
Sponsor Message: 
From Ecuador, joined Sep 2004, 242 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1095 posts, 
From United States, joined Apr 2004, 1510 posts, 
From China, joined Jan 2005, 45 posts, 
, 4044 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3077 posts, 
From Aruba, joined Aug 2004, 2142 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 834 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
