Thegooddoctor From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 523 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 15415 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...)
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.
Lindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3133 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 15169 times:
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, 6884 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15095 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 of America, joined May 2005, 4284 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 15041 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: 56
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 14846 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.
HPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1026 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14506 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 of America, joined Mar 2005, 1026 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 14030 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.
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: 56
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 13832 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 of America, joined May 2006, 870 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 13832 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.
CruzinAltitude From United States of America, joined May 2004, 415 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 13388 times:
Quoting Legoguy (Reply 5): small means more aircraft needed, more aircraft means more pilots, more pilots needed means future job for me and others
the above qoute should read as follows:
more aircraft means more pilots, more pilots means more overhead for airlines, more aircraft means more fuel, more fuel means more overhad for airlines, more overhead for airlines means more airlines tetering on the brink of bankruptcy, more airlines teetering on the brink of bankruptcy means more pilots being furghloghed.
QXatFAT From Israel, joined Feb 2006, 2406 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 13272 times:
No way a 747 will be used on these. A 757 would be just fine with another 737 maybe. First off they already have 757's in their fleet. So HP/US would not have to start from scratch again with 747's. And if anything, they would use a 747 on the FAT-LAS flight just a joke! But here at FAT we were just upgraded to mainline equipment from a CRJ to a A319 and a CRJ to LAS. So in short, 757 is best bet. 747 is asking way to much
QantasA380 From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 212 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 12730 times:
Quoting HPAEAA (Reply 14): 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...
Quoting ABQopsHP (Reply 20): 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.
This is exactly why US would prefer to send two or more smaller aircraft on the same route at the same time than to send one larger aircraft - because those smaller aircraft feed onto flights on a number of routes out of the original destination. Happens over here as well, though not perhaps on the same scale as in the USA... and not only on the SYD/MEL pair.
Virgin Blue - what colour's RED????
: I thought that AWA/US used the 757 on a dual flight from lax-phx or phx-lax I could be wrong but I thought I saw them use a 757 along with a 737. I co
: In a related story, why doesn't United buy some IL62's? And people wonder why no one takes this forum seriously.
: Here in TUS, we have four CR9's between 6AM and 8AM, including two at 7AM. Most of the time, three will leave in a 15-20 minute period because of traf
: Uhh, it would hit that parking ramp at the end of the runway. Uhh, last time i checked 757 does not equal 733 plus 319 plus 320. More like 763 or A33
: Yeah... I think so too... I agree with this statement as well. More flights to me equals more choices for pax to choose from. Just having a few large
: You're getting a permanent mainline upgrade on July 1, I think that's a start. But again, it's more about frequency. The majority of passengers would
: I think this is a great idea. Not only would you not have to fly at the same time to LAX, ONT, and SAN because they are pretty much the same destinati
: A 747-SP waist more full that a bunch of A320/319 or B733! A 30 years old airplane can't be more efficient than a brand new one like A320 or 733. A s
: US has been doing the wingtip flights for years. When I used to commute between EWR and SDF there were always 2 flights leaving EWR bound for PIT. Thi
: Don't forget that if a 747 breaks down, 400 some passengers are stranded, but if a 737 or A320 breaks down, less than 150 are stranded. Thus there is
: Also it's better to have 3 or 4 flights than only one, the pax has more time options!