Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A-380 JFK-LHR  
User currently offlineGoBlue From Canada, joined Jun 2006, 216 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

What carriers are going to operate this route? Same with ORD-LHR and LAX-LHR.

Could a carrier not get a great advantage on that route by filling up the premium cabins and then selling off economy at a resonable price. This would also free up slots at LHR for the carrier to operate more legs to smaller destiantions, or other markets that could use the service.

BA operates a ton of 747/777 on these routes. I know they do not have any A-380's on order. But they will have to respond to any compeition on these routes.

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4540 times:

Well, there's certainly something to be said (in terms of congestion, cost, environment, etc.) for condensing 8 daily 744's into 5 daily 388's, or whatever.

However, the answer I usually hear is that on precisely these routes - especially JFK-LHR - business travelers want frequency. With JFK-LHR eastbound, it's not that big a deal to condense:

8:00 a.m. 744
9:00 a.m. 772
6:30 p.m. 744
7:00 p.m. 744
7:30 p.m. 744
8:00 p.m. 744
9:00 p.m. 744
10:30 p.m. 744

to

8:30 a.m. 772
6:30 p.m. 388
7:30 p.m. 388
8:30 p.m. 388
10:30 p.m. 388

Here, travelers can still who up anytime from 3:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and get on a flight within three hours.

However, consider it westbound LHR-JFK: Going from

8:30 a.m. 744
10:30 a.m. 744
12:00 p.m. 744
1:00 p.m. 744
3:00 p.m. 744
4:30 p.m. 744
7:00 p.m. 744
9:00 p.m. 772

to

8:30 a.m. 388
12:00 p.m. 388
3:00 p.m. 388
6:00 p.m. 388
9:00 p.m. 772

means that a walk-up traveler (the most profitable kind) might have to wait over four hours to get on a flight. For most of us, that wouldn't be awful, but it limits connections options, etc.

In any event, it would seem unlikely that BA (the airline I've been using as a rough example) would do a wholesale replacement of 744's with 388's on that route. However, where BA could use the 388 is for incremental capacity increases without expanding the number of slots used at Heathrow.

Just my $0.02 (or GBP0.01) worth...


User currently offlinePtugarin From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4482 times:

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Reply 1):
to

8:30 a.m. 772

Did you mean 8:30 a.m. 388? I don't think shrinking morning capacity is an option.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4482 times:

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Reply 1):
8:00 a.m. 744
9:00 a.m. 772
6:30 p.m. 744
7:00 p.m. 744
7:30 p.m. 744
8:00 p.m. 744
9:00 p.m. 744
10:30 p.m. 744

to

8:30 a.m. 772
6:30 p.m. 388
7:30 p.m. 388
8:30 p.m. 388
10:30 p.m. 388

Can't do it that way.

First, you can't assume that people flying at 7 just go at 6:30. Then there's the slot issue on the other end.

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Reply 1):
8:30 a.m. 744
10:30 a.m. 744
12:00 p.m. 744
1:00 p.m. 744
3:00 p.m. 744
4:30 p.m. 744
7:00 p.m. 744
9:00 p.m. 772

to

8:30 a.m. 388
12:00 p.m. 388
3:00 p.m. 388
6:00 p.m. 388
9:00 p.m. 772

I can't see this either, consolidating 3 morning 744s into 2 A388s with 3.5 hour spacing. Nor can you just move a flight from 7pm to 6pm and expect it to fill up. There are business days and schedules you are just ignoring here.

If anything, you might see 8:30, 10:30, and 3PM with A388, and then other frequencies with other planes.

That means for the JFK-LHR run, you only have 3 388s a day, so maybe you send those at 7PM, 9PM and 10:30PM and other equipment for the other demand.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDiscoverCSG From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4405 times:

Well, there's certainly something to be said (in terms of congestion, cost, environment, etc.) for condensing 8 daily 744's into 5 daily 388's, or whatever.

However, the answer I usually hear is that on precisely these routes - especially JFK-LHR - business travelers want frequency. With JFK-LHR eastbound, it's not that big a deal to condense:

8:00 a.m. 744
9:00 a.m. 772
6:30 p.m. 744
7:00 p.m. 744
7:30 p.m. 744
8:00 p.m. 744
9:00 p.m. 744
10:30 p.m. 744

to

8:30 a.m. 772
6:30 p.m. 388
7:30 p.m. 388
8:30 p.m. 388
10:30 p.m. 388

Here, travelers can still who up anytime from 3:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. and get on a flight within three hours.

However, consider it westbound LHR-JFK: Going from

8:30 a.m. 744
10:30 a.m. 744
12:00 p.m. 744
1:00 p.m. 744
3:00 p.m. 744
4:30 p.m. 744
7:00 p.m. 744
9:00 p.m. 772

to

8:30 a.m. 388
12:00 p.m. 388
3:00 p.m. 388
6:00 p.m. 388
9:00 p.m. 772

means that a walk-up traveler (the most profitable kind) might have to wait over four hours to get on a flight. For most of us, that wouldn't be awful, but it limits connections options, etc.

In any event, it would seem unlikely that BA (the airline I've been using as a rough example) would do a wholesale replacement of 744's with 388's on that route. However, where BA could use the 388 is for incremental capacity increases without expanding the number of slots used at Heathrow.

Just my $0.02 (or GBP0.01) worth...


User currently offlineMIgAiR54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

it´s a difficult issue,

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 3):
There are business days and schedules you are just ignoring here.

totally agree

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Reply 1):
business travelers want frequency

not only business travelers, everybody, if you have to fly, more frequencies means more choices.

IMO A380 will fly before on the kangaroo route and Asia (India, China, Japan....) i´ve read in other topic that AF is thinking about deploying their A380 to Tokyo and China.

Cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo has lot of business travellers and tons of cargo, so A380 could work better with the same frequencies but with some more capacity.

This routes between NYC and big cities in Europe usually are very profitable. if you don´t fly the route somebody else will do.


User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1307 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4303 times:

I'm amazed that most people on this forum only think about 1:1 replacement. What about growth? Both US and European economies are still growing. This should provide room for growth in air travelling. BA could wait until other airlines pick-up the extra demand or choose a more offensive approach. Same goes for other European and American legacy airlines.


There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineBoysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 951 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

DiscoverCSG has condensed 1x772 and 7x744 into 1x772 and 4x388. This is too much rationalisation surely? 7x744 does not equal 4x388!

User currently offlineShamrock_747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

If BA do order the A380 I don't think it would be used to JFK. The aircraft would be far more suited to the likes of HKG, NRT, CPT, JNB etc. One of BA's main advantages on the JFK route is frequency. The 747-400s used on these flights have 14 FIRST and 70 Club World seats, with an overall capacity of fewer than 300 pax - it's all about schedule rather than mass capacity.

User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3829 times:

Right now, of the carriers which fly (or will fly) JFK-LHR here are the possibilities:

1-BA-Walsh has stated even if they get the A380, JFK-LHR wouldn't be a route, as frequency is king for that route...and they aren't going to upguage either, as their load factor (2006) on LHR-JFK runs at around 75%
2-VS-they are deferring their A380's..so not so sure with them, but they would be a candidate...
3-AA-no chance
4-DL-no chance
5-BD...slim to none
6- AI-if they get the A380, this might be one route for them...JFK-LHR-DEL..



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineTrent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Quoting DiscoverCSG (Reply 1):
Well, there's certainly something to be said (in terms of congestion, cost, environment, etc.) for condensing 8 daily 744's into 5 daily 388's, or whatever.

I appreciated your response. It obviously took some time to compile the schedules, even if they serve only for others to respond to. The condensed information makes your point clear.


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...
AA JFK-LHR 777 Flights Minutes Apart. posted Tue Mar 27 2007 05:28:46 by JAAlbert
BA JFK-LHR Jan 12 posted Sun Jan 7 2007 18:06:37 by AirlineFanatic
AA JFK-LHR - Terminal 8 Or 9 At JFK? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 06:05:09 by Nickofatlanta
Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 20:14:50 by UA933
Official; UA Shifting JFK-NRT/ceasing JFK-LHR posted Fri Jul 28 2006 15:36:15 by Gman3
AA And JFK-LHR Oversales posted Sat Jun 24 2006 01:31:37 by RamerinianAir
Virgin JFK-LHR In A300/320? posted Sat Apr 15 2006 04:51:54 by Bjornstrom
AA Adds 777 Morning Flight JFK - LHR For Tomorrow posted Fri Aug 12 2005 04:17:31 by B777FA
JFK-LHR-DEL On AA/VS Questions posted Fri May 20 2005 21:21:25 by Petazulu
BA LHR-JFK-LHR World Traveller Plus posted Tue May 17 2005 10:01:55 by Atco2b