Thegooddoctor From United States, joined Nov 2005, 478 posts, RR: 1 Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9602 times:
How about the dozen or so times a day when US Airways sends out 2-3 flights at one time for the same destination (as in sending out two America West operated flights at 1029am): IE. PHX-LAX, PHX-SAN, PHX-ONT, PHX-SNA, PHX-LAS, PHX-SEA, etc...
US does this at five points during the day between PHX and SFO ALONE (usually mixing an A320 with an A319 or 733 in these pairings). If you figure the capacity of an A320 (150) plus that of an A319 (124), it seems like it would be an economical place to start running high-capacity/short range widebodies.
If US has found flight times that sell lots of tickets, how about picking up some old 747SP's and saving some jetfuel?
That's my two cents for the evening (and my pipedream as well...)
Seanp11 From United States, joined Jan 2006, 290 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9564 times:
Cause a 30yr old airframe isn't more fuel efficient than 2 or 3 smaller aircraft? A bunch of A320s and 737s will be more efficient than a 747SP, especially when they only have to fly 400nm.
Ok, so in the future, you imagine 2,000 crj flights between JFK and LHR? No, small is not the future. High frequency is. But when you reach a point where you have a flight every 30 minutes (between two cities), you up the size of the aircraft, not continue to add more flights.
Legoguy From Ireland, joined Jun 2006, 3059 posts, RR: 29 Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9386 times:
Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 2): You've got the trends all wrong. It would be better to send five or six CRJs simultaneously. Small is good. Small is the future.
small means more aircraft needed, more aircraft means more pilots, more pilots needed means future job for me and others
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
Lindy Field From United States, joined Mar 2001, 2880 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9356 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
The trick will be to develop cockpit commonality between a greyhound bus and an RJ. This should make the transfer from bus driver to RJ pilot nearly seamless and allow airlines to get their costs down.
In the more distant future, aircraft manufacturers should try to establish full commonality between RJs and rickshaws.
AR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 2283 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9282 times:
The 747SP would be a bad choice because the real benefits from that aircraft come at very high cruising altitude on very long distance flights. I do not know the demand, but if your argument holds, they probably should order some 747-400D's like ANA and JAL These aircraft also have the benefit that they can be converted to a normal 747-400 for international operations. Although we all know how America West fared with the ex-KLM's 747's it got at some point in the 90's, I can't remember exactly.
HPRamper From United States, joined May 2005, 2086 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9228 times:
It would probably be better now than it was then, because of the connectivity and infrastructure improvements, but still not worth a try, in my opinion. I'd rather see some 763s or 764s. 752s are the more likely acquisition...I keep hearing rumors of purchases of these, in any case, almost any station can handle a 757, while anything bigger would be limited to stations with special equipment.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57 Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9033 times:
What a concept! Talk about thinking outside-the-box.
1. Saving fuel with the 747SP - thats funny - the 747SP was not a very fuel effecient airplane especially on a per seat basis. And the 747SP was certainly not well suited for short range hops.
2. The routes that you mention are important spokes out of the PHX hub.....in order for the HP/US route system to work, its important that the key destinations that you mention have frequent service with a departure from each "bank" of the hub operation. Also, these short routes attract biz travellers who require frequency on a route.
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3174 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8706 times:
I agree with Carpethead that an A330-300 might be a good solution, maybe one of US's current frames. Or HP/US could order a few new A330-300s specifically for the above purposes...
HPAEAA From United States, joined May 2006, 951 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8693 times:
Correct me if I'm wrong.. but it used to be that when US Send 2 planes in the same bank to a destination like LAX, only 1 returned back to PHX for the next bank and usually the other went to LAS... so by combining the flights you would loose the repositioning possibility...
Greyhound From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1026 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8217 times:
Quoting Lindy Field (Reply 6): The trick will be to develop cockpit commonality between a greyhound bus and an RJ. This should make the transfer from bus driver to RJ pilot nearly seamless and allow airlines to get their costs down.
Iowa744Fan From United States, joined Apr 2004, 921 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8156 times:
Quoting Thegooddoctor (Thread starter): US does this at five points during the day between PHX and SFO ALONE
First of all, can you show me where in our schedule we do this? The other pairs are all correct, but we don't do any duel ops to SFO. We do them to the other cities that you mentioned, but not to SFO.
Second, the dual ops also have a lot to do with our system network and its layout. In PHX, we have many more cities from the east where flights are coming into than there are cities to the west where flights can go to. So, we face the decision of either having planes sit on the ground and wait until the next bank heading back to the east or using them to run some additional flights to the west coast to cities with larger demands to improve utilization.
Third, bringing a 747 (whether you mean an SP or an SR) would be a poor idea for our company. We presently offer nothing of that size, and more importantly, why are we going to invest in such a large aircraft (and deal with the additional costs of operating a few of the aircraft) to get an aircraft to fly a bunch of short hops between PHX and the West. Sure, the 744 probably has a lower CASM than the 319, 320, or 733, but you still have to try to fill it (which will likely give you a pretty poor RASM on these markets). As for using the 757s or bringing out some 330s, that would only bring us back to the original problem of having a bunch of 319s, 320s, and 733s sitting on the ground at PHX waiting for the next bank. Plus, it would take these aircraft out of service from other key areas where they are needed.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57 Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8019 times:
Quoting UCLAX (Reply 15): The SR premise works in Japan -- why not the American Southwest? It'd make me change away from UA. Welcome from another physician!
Because most domestic air traffic in Japan is point to point - moving lots of pax from one city to another. In the US (geographically much bigger, of course) the airline networks are based around hubs......and for hubs to work, there must be frequent departures on key routes such as the PHX-West Coast routes mentioned. Flying 5 large airplanes per day between PHX and LAX cannot replace 12 to 15 departures.
Quoting San747 (Reply 13): I agree with Carpethead that an A330-300 might be a good solution, maybe one of US's current frames. Or HP/US could order a few new A330-300s specifically for the above purposes...
Yeah, this is gonna happen?! US is going to pull their precisious A330s off of their profit making international routes to fly them between PHX and ONT. What a great idea.
ABQopsHP From United States, joined May 2006, 389 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8019 times:
There is a reason for 2 flights operating at or near the same time from say PHX-LAX or PHX-SFO or between 2 hubs. The planes dont always return to the same city they just came from. It could be a/c positioning as to why its done. NW does it between its 3 hubs, and I belive its known as "wingtip" flights.
New member of the Xjet family now. And need a new screen name.
B742 From Spain, joined Mar 2005, 3605 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7837 times:
I can see where your coming from, but I don't think it will happen!
I think PAX would rather have more frequencies on smaller a/c such as A32S's and 737's rather than just have a few daily frequencies on a 747 sized aircraft!
Who know's, maybe when the A350's (or A370's) arrive then the 767's or maybe even A330's could be used!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Nov 2005, 478 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jun 2006, 3059 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 2283 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2200 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2000, 2862 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 785 posts, 
From Spain, joined Mar 2005, 3605 posts, 