Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO And 747-400s?  
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 983 times:

Has anyone else heard the rumor that CO is considering operating the 747-400 on their Pacific Rim routes in place of their 777-200s due to their popularity and increased passenger loads?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMarkus From United States of America, joined May 1999, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 983 times:

No I havn't heard this rumour. But I'd like to hear who the source was that you heard it from. Continental has NO intentions of purchasing/leasing any 747-400's for the Pacific routes. We got our 777's, initially, for the specific purpose of expanding into the Pacific-US market. The 777 has better long-range capabilities and will be the first choice for years to come.

As usual most rumours are not credible.

Cheers,
Markus

Work Hard. Fly Right.


User currently offlineMr Satnaq From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 983 times:

Oh, Markus, thank God.

Can you please shed some light on the following matter?

Is Continental going to return to Australia?

How I miss CO down here!!!



User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 983 times:

First, it was from people who work at Continental. Second, the 777 does not have better long-range capabilities. Just review the stat sheets. The 777 is nice but the 747-400 is better for most airlines on their Pacific routes.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 983 times:

Also, to me (Not a professional!) it makes sense to switch to the B747-400 on their Pacific Rim routes IF they have high load factors. The 777s are great aircraft but can not carry the same amount of pax and cargo across the Pacific. Also think of the ETOPS restrictions. I am not saying that they are going to replace their 777s but augment them. When Continental placed their 777 order they placed in it the option to switch to 747-400s at any time. Your airline would make more profit if it had a 747-400 flight on some days when traffic was more than the 777-200 could handle and 777-200 flights when it was low.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 984 times:

The other factor that may play into switching to -400's (Maybe) is that CO could get them as combi aircraft. My understanding is that Air Mike is a lot like most bush carriers back home in Alaska. There is a large need for freight capabilities because everything has to be either boated or flown in.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineMarkus From United States of America, joined May 1999, 275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 984 times:

I'd like to know where these Continental employees heard it from. From my conversations and open-house general meetings with guys like Chuck Coble (VP COEX), Dave Siegel (COEX Pres.) and Greg Brenneman (COO COA) the fleet plans for Continental and Continental Express are as follows. Oh BTW Continental Micronesia is now just Continental. The Micronesia part is being dropped.
Beech 1900D's are attempting to be sold. These are the only planes we own and we are replacing some routes with E-120's when they gradually go away.

We are down to 2 ATR-72's. Routes are being replaced with ERJ's.

We are also trying to find takers for our ATR-42-320's.

DC-9 and 727 aircraft will be retired by January 2000.

As 777 and 767 aircraft arrive, the 757 will be replaced on MOST Trans-Atlantic routes by the DC-10. Some will remain 757 due to runway restrictions (ie Cleveland).
The DC-10-30's will be around for at least 5 moe years.

Continental (Micronesia) will also be retiring its 727's and replacing them with 757's. And like L-188 mentioned, in the immediate future (4-6 years) this would be the only place you might see a 747. But it is extremely doubtful. We're really trying to get fleet commonality.

Mr. Satnaq, we do fly to Australia. We fly to Cairns 3 times weekly. Hopefully with more 777's we will ad Sydney or Melbourne in the future. This is mainly for selfish reasons b/c I would like to go there too ;-)

Cheers,
Markus

Work Hard. Fly Right.


User currently offlineGordon From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 986 times:

Markus is correct, CO has no intention of ever operating 747's again. 744's are just too expensive, and if CO needed them, it would be in a such a small number that the economics just wouldn't work. It's great to imagine airlines operating new and excotic types of aircraft, but you must remember that these companies exist to make money, and fleet decisions are made with exactly that thought in mind.

User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 983 times:

Hi CX747,

so you think CO could get some B744a and increase their pacific network?
Where would they fly? CO just started flying to Tokyo from EWR and IAH with B777s. And what else do they have? B744s from GUM? They should first try to fill their B757s from there. B744s for just two routes, EWR and IAH to NRT? What a nice idea. Buy two or three B747 planes for just two routes is utopic. No airline manager would do that. In today's air taffic many airlines try to increase their frequencies. So if traffic goes up toTokyo they will fly two B777s daily from their hubs. And B744s for new routes such as Osaka, Nagoya or Seoul? Utopic. First B777s should be filled.
CO recently announced that they plan to operate as less types as possible in the near future: B777s, B767(-200)s, B757 and B737s. No more, and especially no B747!

Regards
Udo


User currently offlineMr Satnaq From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 983 times:

Mate, thats music to my ears!!

thanks, Regardes

Mr Satnaq


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 983 times:

First, don't treat me like a child. Second this wasn't my idea. This was information from Continental Employees. Read all of the posts please. This was in the future also. When they filled their 777s.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineJr From United States of America, joined May 1999, 968 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 983 times:

Continental will never be able to fly more than 1 flight a day on these
routes because of existing bilateral agreements. So if they want more
passengers they need a bigger plane or for new laws to be passed. I
am not exactly sure about how these agreements work, but I know that
they directly specify the number of flights an airline can fly or something
like that ...



I've flown on 9V-SPK.
User currently offlinePurdue Cadet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 983 times:

This is exactly the point that I was about to make. The current Japanese-American bilateral agreement allows only two airlines - United and Northwest - to add flights to Japan. The other US carriers have a limited number of flights that they can operate on each route, and if that is once daily for a given route, CO would have no way to add capacity without using larger aircraft. I'm not saying that I think they will but the 744's, but simply that they can't increase capacity by adding flights.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (15 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 985 times:

Ok. I now have another question.

Are Air Mikes routes to say Saipan and the other islands included in that US-Japanese Biliateral agreement?? Or does it just cover domestic-domestic service??



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
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...
Lufthansa B 747-400s And PTVs posted Wed Nov 19 2003 18:23:07 by United Airline
How Old Are The Youngest 747-400s At NW And UA? posted Wed Jun 12 2002 00:25:44 by Bobcat
CO A300 And 747 posted Sun Mar 10 2002 16:44:17 by Phatfarmlines
KLM 747-400s And Blocked Windows posted Sat Jan 12 2002 01:37:18 by Hkg_clk
AN's Flights Between SYD And HKG. All B 747-400s? posted Sun Apr 22 2001 19:39:35 by United Airline
Qantas And New 747-400s & 767-400s. posted Tue Apr 17 2001 01:54:07 by CX747
El Al And More 747-400s? posted Mon Feb 26 2001 18:42:37 by CX747
Canadi<n's 747-400s And 767-300s. posted Fri Feb 4 2000 23:47:44 by CX747
What's It Like On CP 747-400s And 767-300ERs? posted Thu Feb 3 2000 23:08:03 by Boeing 777
Virgin 747-400s, Destinations & LAX posted Tue Feb 20 2007 11:28:42 by AirxLiban