Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4426 times:
This is a surprise move, will CSA consolidate their NYC operations at JFK and work more closely with DL?
There are strong rumors that CO is looking at launching EWR-Prague with the next round of European expansion.......some thought that the route would be included for the Summer 2005 schedule (did not happen) and now the rumor is that Prague will be a new destination for the Summer 2006 schedule.....flown with the 757-200 with Winglets.
Is it possible that CSA will drop their own flight into EWR and code-share with CO on its new EWR-PRG flight? That could explains what is going on here.....CSA will concentrate on JFK and CO will fly the EWR route. Maybe this is a clue that CO will in fact launch service to PRG in the near future.
Flyguy1 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1691 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4264 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 2): There are strong rumors that CO is looking at launching EWR-Prague with the next round of European expansion.......some thought that the route would be included for the Summer 2005 schedule (did not happen) and now the rumor is that Prague will be a new destination for the Summer 2006 schedule.....flown with the 757-200 with Winglets.
Is it possible that CSA will drop their own flight into EWR and code-share with CO on its new EWR-PRG flight? That could explains what is going on here.....CSA will concentrate on JFK and CO will fly the EWR route. Maybe this is a clue that CO will in fact launch service to PRG in the near future.
Will JFK get extra frequencies due to this? I'm sure the EWR spotters are not happy. The last thing they want is another CO 757.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1710 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4199 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 2): There are strong rumors that CO is looking at launching EWR-Prague with the next round of European expansion.......some thought that the route would be included for the Summer 2005 schedule (did not happen) and now the rumor is that Prague will be a new destination for the Summer 2006 schedule.....flown with the 757-200 with Winglets.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 757-200s range would allow it... From what I remember watching 757s range charts, the farthest they can go with full pax load + reserves is western Germany...
edit: just took another look at the range circle from NY posted on Boeing's website... It might actually make it if it's fitted with winglets. Is it still going to make the westbound flight to EWR though??
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16274 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4114 times:
Strong possibility CO will be announcing EWR-Prague in the next couple of months.
L410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5394 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3934 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 4): Not the first time this has happened. CSA dropped EWR after 9/11, and resumed it about a year or so later.
CSA quit EWR first time not because of 9/11 but because they joined SkyTeam and as a result of that their c/s partner for intra-US flights changed from CO to DL (CO was not ST member back then).
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 2): Is it possible that CSA will drop their own flight into EWR and code-share with CO on its new EWR-PRG flight? That could explains what is going on here.....CSA will concentrate on JFK and CO will fly the EWR route. Maybe this is a clue that CO will in fact launch service to PRG in the near future.
That sounds very likely. CSA seems to be not exactly rushing its decision to go ahead with badly needed replacement of its long-haul fleet - despite being in much better financial shape then LOT.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31122 posts, RR: 74 Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3927 times:
Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 9):
CSA quit EWR first time not because of 9/11 but because they joined SkyTeam and as a result of that their c/s partner for intra-US flights changed from CO to DL (CO was not ST member back then).
All I said was that CSA dropped EWR after 9/11, which they did. I never stated any reason for it, but thanks for the info. However, I have a hard time believing that 9/11 did not have something to do with it. CSA re-started EWR even before CO joined skyTeam.
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6473 posts, RR: 27 Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3871 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 7): Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 757-200s range would allow it... From what I remember watching 757s range charts, the farthest they can go with full pax load + reserves is western Germany...
edit: just took another look at the range circle from NY posted on Boeing's website... It might actually make it if it's fitted with winglets. Is it still going to make the westbound flight to EWR though??
With EWR-PRG @ 4095 mi being even 115 mi longer than EWR-TXL, which already has faced problems with range on CO´s B752W´s, it can be assumed that service to PRG will be even more challenging (especially on the westbound flight). Even if CO has a good staff at EWR who re-books delayed pax (due to a tech stop en-route) quite efficiently, personally I "wouldn´t be amused" as a pax if this happens frequently (but unscheduled).
-HT
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
Panamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4590 posts, RR: 26 Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3766 times:
If OK's intentions are to consolidate operations in the NYC area, forcing them to choose either EWR or JFK, then JFK would be the obvious choice because of the closer ties with DL. As already mentioned, their domestic US codeshares are with DL, and OK and DL did obtain Anti-Trust Immunity (ATI) as part of the overall SkyTeam ATI agreement among AF, AZ, OK, DL, and KE.
GSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2749 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3712 times:
Quoting STT757:
"Strong possibility CO will be announcing EWR-Prague in the next couple of months."
I was wondering when DL or CO would be doing this. It seems CS's A310's underserve the USA-PRG market a bit.
JAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3321 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2416 times:
Why would CSA need to operate an A310 to JFK and EWR? Can the people travelling to/thru PRG not go to JFK? The two airports are not that far apart. How good were the loads on CSA for the EWR-PRG route anyway?
Supported the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
LH459 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 886 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2190 times:
Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 14): Why would CSA need to operate an A310 to JFK and EWR? Can the people travelling to/thru PRG not go to JFK? The two airports are not that far apart. How good were the loads on CSA for the EWR-PRG route anyway?
EWR-PRG was taking a lot of connecting pax through the CO feed, which is much stronger than the DL feed at JFK. From what I've seen in the CRS, both flights seem to do very well!
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is temporary; the evil it does is permanent" - Ghandi
Lrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
Quoting HT (Reply 11): With EWR-PRG @ 4095 mi being even 115 mi longer than EWR-TXL, which already has faced problems with range on CO´s B752W´s, it can be assumed that service to PRG will be even more challenging (especially on the westbound flight). Even if CO has a good staff at EWR who re-books delayed pax (due to a tech stop en-route) quite efficiently, personally I "wouldn´t be amused" as a pax if this happens frequently (but unscheduled).
-HT
I think it is time for CO to bite the bullet and come out with a 2nd seating arrangement for the 767-200's.......as we all know they seat LESS than the 757-200's because of a huge BusinessFirst cabin, but PRG and certain longer range markets have very week premium traffic and thus favor the 757-200's, even though they can't fly that far! They need to realize that these routes NEED a 767, so just re-configure a few to serve these markets!
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16274 posts, RR: 52 Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
CO's 767-200s are perfectly suited for routes like Geneva and Zurich where CO has high demand for Business First Seats.
Lrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1916 times:
Quoting Lrgt (Reply 16): so just re-configure a few to serve these markets!
I was only suggesting re-configuration of a few to operate these long flights they are futilely trying to do with a 757
CO2BGR From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 558 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
The CO 762 Actually seat more than the B/F 752's, which is the alternative flying internationally, but less than the domestic 752s
B/F 752 16/156 Total 172
dom 752 24/159 total 182
B/F 762 25/149 total 174
There are too many self indulgent weiners in this town with too much bloody money" Randal Raines- Gone in 60 Seconds
Tsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 602 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1614 times:
PRG is a good cargo market...hopefully CO scheduling would allocate a widebody(767) if they decide to go...as far as I know DME is the next European dest, but things change quick...CSA may want to deploy their A310 to another city, considering EWR/JFK the same dest...
777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 20 Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
Our longhaul 757s are operating at dispatch reliability rates in excess of 98%. Hardly futile.
The rare instances of fuel stops are results of irregular operations (weather, traffic management, etc.) which affect all inbound Europe-US flights, and forces even 767s and A330s down on occasion. This is an exception not the rule.
The 767-200s operate on premium-intensive routes in which we generally sell most of our BusinessFirst seats. Cargo is also a key consideration, but if cargo was the driving force behind viability of a route, chances are we would find a way to get a 777 in there so long as pax levels and yields were sustainable. As we know, the '67 is not an ideal freight hauler. Prague, while surely capable of generating solid yields, is hardly a Geneva or Brussels, therefore EWR-PRG would be a strong 757 candidate for the next round of transatlantic expansion.
Also note that the 757s, starting next year, will operate with a 16/159 configuration for a total of 175 seats, one more than the 762.
Tsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 602 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1525 times:
Quoting 777gk (Reply 21): As we know, the '67 is not an ideal freight hauler. Prague, while surely capable of generating solid yields, is hardly a Geneva or Brussels, therefore EWR-PRG would be a strong 757 candidate for the next round of transatlantic expansion.
its certainly more ideal than any narrow body a/c...GVA generates very little cargo biz, especially export...PRG would definitely be better...
Lrgt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 710 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1515 times:
Quoting 777gk (Reply 21): The 767-200s operate on premium-intensive routes in which we generally sell most of our BusinessFirst seats.
Do you disagree or agree with my statement that CO needs to have a separate 767-200 seating arrangement for routes that are not as premium-intensive, but that the 757 can't reach?
Checo77 From Peru, joined Oct 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1476 times:
A really surprising news. Pretty weird to see CSA drop a market with so big connection chances to US, Lat Am and Caribean. Definitely, CO will start a service to PRG, since there would be high demand for it.
As another matter, CSA should change their A310s NOW for a newer technology. Their financial situation is extremely stable, so why waiting?
Hope to see a CO 762 in PRG soon.
Regards,
Adam
Czech Boeing lover living in Lima
25 RCS763AV: I always thought it was weird that LO and OK flew to both airports. Its a very costly manner. AV did it and now they only fly to JFK for costs. Finall
26 L410Turbolet: CSA's entire long-haul "network" does not make too much sense. YUL+YYZ, JFK, too bad the tsunami killed the CMB+MLE (via DXB) route, which was quite
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, 
From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 5857 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31122 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1691 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jun 2000, 4930 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1710 posts, 
From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5394 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3321 posts, 
From Peru, joined Oct 2004, 1345 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
