Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Frequency..... The End Is Near.  
User currently offlineA5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10890 times:

So, with oil nearing $100.00 per barrel.  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!

I'd say frequency is going to die.

I once said that the A380, would soon be too small....

Fewer flights, to fewer destinations... But using mammoth airplanes.

Unfortunately, I think this era is coming, much faster than I'd thought.  

A5XX

[Edited 2007-11-09 14:19:55]


we are the boeing... resistance is futile...You will be assimilated
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRJNUT From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10870 times:

i feel like everybody is just "whistling in the dark right now!"

User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 10784 times:

Mommoth airplanes can only be used on some routes. Sure they save fuel per pax but that only works if you keep the plane full. I'd put my money on new aircraft the same size as today's but which overall burn less fuel.
That and maybe some more consolodation and simplification of fleets will help.


User currently offlineA5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10725 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
Mommoth airplanes can only be used on some routes. Sure they save fuel per pax but that only works if you keep the plane full. I'd put my money on new aircraft the same size as today's but which overall burn less fuel.
That and maybe some more consolodation and simplification of fleets will help.

Airlines will have to reduce their costs, to be able to survive. They will, eventually, need to reduce the number of flights, reduce the number of aircrews.... well... reduce everything. This will lead to their using of bigger airplanes. And since the number of flights will be greatly reduced, the mammoth airplanes will still be full...

I think Boeing have something on the drawing board.

What about a HUGE trijet... a la L1011, with, let's say GE90-150 engines? 

I know Boeing is unlikely to develop a Trijet this big, because if you loose 150K lbs of thrust, due to an engine failure, on take off, hell can happen... They will probably develop a 4 engine mammoth airplane, just like the A380, but bigger.


A5XX (who is a fan of trijets like the L1011)  Big grin

[Edited 2007-11-09 14:58:18]


we are the boeing... resistance is futile...You will be assimilated
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10591 times:

i dont think they will go as far as using A380s on domestic routes or anything, but we might see something like 777s replacing a route like San-atl, with dl combining a 757 and 767 (obviously I am just making an example) but I think we could see some 783 orders for airlines like UA who mostly uses A320s for domestic routes. Just combine a couple flights we dont need that much frequency, this will cut delays and congestion in the air

User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10589 times:

Quoting A5XX (Reply 3):
Airlines will have to reduce their costs, to be able to survive.

Agreed, it is just my opinion that very large aircraft are not the answer. I think more efficient current sized jets will be part of the answer. Industry consolodation will be a part. Then more efficient fleet planning and simplification will be the final part.
For example. The 787 is similar in size to some 767's and A330's and is selling well. The A350 is similar in size to the current 777's and A340's and in time will probably sell well. That is step one, more efficiency from current sized planes.
Industry consolodation. America West already bought US Airways. Other airlines seem to always be looking for someone to buy. Perhaps some LCC's and regionals will merge along with majors. That's my step two.
Fleet simplification I believe to be step 3. For example, US Airways again. They have
B1900 at 19 seats.
Saab 340 (34 seats) and Q100/200 (37 seats). Choose one type.
ERJ-145 (50 seats), Q300 (50 seats), CRJ-200 (50 seats). Choose one type.
CRJ-700 (70 seats) and EMB 170 (72 seats). Choose one type.
CRJ-900 (86 seats) and EMB 190 (99 seats). Choose one type.
In just the US Airways regional fleet it is possible to go from 11 types to 5 with little or no change in capacity. Then there is simplification in training, spare parts, ect.

Just my opinion. My 3 step plan to industry profitability.


User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10481 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 5):
Choose one type.

   No kidding. United is a perfect example for this - they run the A319, A320, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777. They, IMO, could run two types of aircraft, and do just as well in maintaining routes and high loads. And, on a side note, those two would be the B777 and a choice between the A319 (or 320 - lots of the same parts) and the B737.

As far as frequency falling, I can imagine that happening. I could see at least one more regional buying another well within the next 12 months - so far we've seen SkyWest buy ASA awhile back and then Pinnacle bought Colgan. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Ornstein sell out, just to rid the airlines of Mesa (to whom he would do that, I have no idea).

As far as majors and LCC's merging - those threads appear in this forum seemingly often, and the possibilities get picked apart by the pros, so there's not many options (IMO) currently. Almost any that start with the majors, IMO, would include United (UA is an E-W carrier - the rest are mainly N-S, except perhaps the new Airways). But there could be one between an LCC and another major. It's fun to speculate on occasion.

Edited for spelling

[Edited 2007-11-09 15:46:26]

User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10476 times:

As the volume of air travel increases, I think we will see an increase in VLAs, but frequency is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Time is money, and people are willing to pay for the added convenience of frequency and a broader choice of routes. While the CASM of a 787 might still be slightly higher than that of the A380, the revenue per seat mile will be higher as well.

Furthermore, as the 787 and A350 prove (or will soon prove), size is not the only way to increase eficiency over older aircraft. In fact, when compared to a 747, the A380 gains a CASM advantage due to new systems and better aerodynamics--the fact its larger is a small part of the equation.

Ultimately, big planes combat air traffic congestion, allowing a larger volume of passengers to move within the existing system. Economically, economies of scale show up in there operation (one flight crew, less MX expense than two planes of the same capacity, etc.) but the actual fuel burn per passenger is a very small part of this, and it will take a lot more than a $100 barrel of oil to make this small benefit a reason to change how the world flies.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 10344 times:

Frequency is in response to the demands of the business traveller, and, for the most part, price is NOT an object. Many companies have deals with airlines already for discounted travel, and flexibility is key - that is why business travellers pay for fully refundable/changeable tickets.

"The cost of doing business" is tax deductible, and in a global economy, travel is indispensable. It will continue, even with slow downs in certain routes.

For the U.S., domestic wide-bodies are almost gone - they are too important to be used on international routes (where the  dollarsign   dollarsign   dollarsign  is right now!), and routes once unthinkable for RJ's are now commonplace.

For all its problems, frequency is what drives the market now, and increases in prices won't change that.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineFutureFO From Ireland, joined Oct 2001, 3132 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10104 times:

Actually in the US system the 170's have 76 seats and the 175's have 86 seats. And as far as comfort no competition the E-jets win hands down.


I Don't know where I am anymore
User currently offlineA5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10065 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 7):
As the volume of air travel increases, I think we will see an increase in VLAs, but frequency is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Time is money, and people are willing to pay for the added convenience of frequency and a broader choice of routes......

Ultimately, big planes combat air traffic congestion, allowing a larger volume of passengers to move within the existing system. Economically, economies of scale show up in there operation (one flight crew, less MX expense than two planes of the same capacity, etc.) but the actual fuel burn per passenger is a very small part of this, and it will take a lot more than a $100 barrel of oil to make this small benefit a reason to change how the world flies.

And what about videoconference technology? For a lot of companies, videoconference will kill air travel, in the foreseeable future. Frequency, in airline travel for businesses, might not be a requirement, anymore. Videoconference systems are getting more and more sophisticated, have higher image resolution, they use big monitors, and, in the end, after a videoconference, the only thing that's missing, is the hand shake...

A5XX



we are the boeing... resistance is futile...You will be assimilated
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7591 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10027 times:

Quoting A5XX (Reply 10):
And what about videoconference technology?

Videoconferencing is not new technology at this point, it has been around for several years. Yes, it can take the place of certain meetings, as can a conference call. However, you cannot replace the need to go on a plant visit, multiple supplier visits, entertaining a client to dinner, and being in day(s) long meeting without actually traveling to a location.


User currently offlineA5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9979 times:

Of course..

However, i'm talking about corporate meetings. Many big companies, are currently saving in excess of $5 000 000.00 in travel expenses/year, by using videoconferencing technology. So yes, videoconference is going to be a threat to air travel, in the future. Usually, the videoconference equipment pays for itself, within 2 months..

A5XX

[Edited 2007-11-09 19:43:06]


we are the boeing... resistance is futile...You will be assimilated
User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3292 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9903 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 5):
Just my opinion. My 3 step plan to industry profitability.

Well, you'll be a great captain. Your knowledge of the financial side of the industry is sketchy at best, like many airline pilots. Yet they contine to spout of as if they know how to read a balance sheet. Lets examine your thoughts:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 5):
B1900 at 19 seats.
Saab 340 (34 seats) and Q100/200 (37 seats). Choose one type.
ERJ-145 (50 seats), Q300 (50 seats), CRJ-200 (50 seats). Choose one type.
CRJ-700 (70 seats) and EMB 170 (72 seats). Choose one type.
CRJ-900 (86 seats) and EMB 190 (99 seats). Choose one type.
In just the US Airways regional fleet it is possible to go from 11 types to 5 with little or no change in capacity. Then there is simplification in training, spare parts, ect.

B1900, operated under contract by Colgan, US has no ownership issue. Colgan shares the risk of profit, many flown on EAS routes.
Saab, again operated under contract by Colgan. The Dash 8-100's (not Q model btw) are operated by Piedmont, a wholly owned subsidiary. Same with the -300's, common fleet type. The -200's have been retired.
ERJ-145, operated by Chatauqua, under contract, US has no ownership of fleet. CRJ-200, and some -700's are flown by PSA, another US wholly owned regional.
The 170's are flown by Republic (same ownership as CHQ), again no ownership.
CRJ-900's are flown by Mesa under contract. No ownership.
190's are flown by mainline, US owns/lease the planes.

In these cases, it's cheaper for US to farm out most of the regional flying to contract carriers. They hold responsibility for obtaining certificates, etc. In most cases US pays these carriers a fixed fee for departure. They don't need to worry about fleet type, just the number of seats and the bottom line. Since multiple regional carrier actually own and operate the planes, there is no real way to save money regarding training, spare parts, etc. Most of the back office operations of the two wholly owned regionals (PSA/Piedmont) have already been combined under the Special Services Operation, based at MDT.

On paper it looks smart to just have a few types of regional aircraft, bu tin reality it doesn't cost US any more to have a regional fleet, and by splitting it up amongst many partners, they can play the cost game, and get the lowest fee for departure.

Hope this helps, as you will likely be looking to work for one of these regionals one day.....


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9860 times:

Quoting A5XX (Reply 12):
So yes, videoconference is going to be a threat to air travel, in the future. Usually, the videoconference equipment pays for itself, within 2 months..

When I read that I immediately though you were a video conference salesman--and according to your profile I was half right--you work in that industry.

Let me make two quick points:

First, Private jet use is growing rapidly. This in itself is proof how much people value convenience. Even a low-end jet like a Citation 501 will run you $1300/hour, and most companies are happy to pay for aircraft much pricier than that.

Two, every market forecast out there indicates massive growth in air travel. Video conferencing is hardly a secret--were it poised to decimate commercial aviation you can be sure financial institutions and others investing in the airlines would be much more hesitant to predict growth.

Quoting A5XX (Thread starter):
I once said that the A380, would soon be too small....

Fewer flights, to fewer destinations... But using mammoth airplanes.

You don't even seem that certain about it yourself--if Video conferencing is going to have that much of an impact, why even bother with a bigger jet? Sure it might knock a few percent off the growth rate in certain segments, but for many applications it is a poor substitute.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9837 times:

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 13):

Thank you for that explaination of which regionals really operate the regional aircraft. I am well aware most regional flying is contracted out. It is appparent you missed step two of my plan and went straight to step 3. Step 2 was industry consolodation. This could mean regionals buying out other regionals. Majors buying regionals. Majors buying majors. LCC's buying anything, ect, ect, ect.
IF step 2 happens first it is wholly possible for US to not have contracts with every contract carrier that comes knocking at the door and perhaps fleet management will become more of an issue at that time.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11630 posts, RR: 61
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9768 times:

Frequency isn't going anywhere as long as people want it and continue to place value on it, which I don't see changing at all anytime soon.

I think the reports of frequency's death are highly exaggerated.  Smile


User currently offlineAirlineBrat From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 652 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9755 times:

To be honest with you. Video conferencing works well to a point but you still need face to face meetings every so often. I have seen the dark side of video conferencing. The meeting often disintegrates when the mute button is enabled and chatter in the room not broadcasting starts in with "Those wingnuts down there have no clue......." You can't do that when everyone is in the same room. We just had a kickoff meeting using video conference technology with something like 12 different offices located all over the State of California participating. Usually there are only two or occasionally three offices in conference. It was interesting. We pulled it off but I don't think we got the quality of communication that we could have if we were in the same room. At least for the initial meeting. Some offices hogged airtime and others were rarely heard from. Most of our future meetings will be by video conference but we do plan on one or two face to face meetings. I'll be flying down to SMF for those. One day marathon... Leave ACV at 5:30am and return around 10pm.


I'm leavin on a jet plane. Don't know when I'll be back again....
User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3292 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9535 times:

With any acquisition, you'll run into issues. Thats why regional consolidation isn't very likely. The only one out there that was an easy purchase was Mesaba. They only flew for NW. Maybe Comair if DL can make a decision on it. But nowadays most of the regionals have mixed their flying to protect their revenue.

Regionals will have a hard time buying others due to restrictions in their contracts. Republic Holdings runs 3 tickets (Republic, Chatauqua, and Shuttle America) just to get around such restrictions. Purchasing a regional is no guarantee of flying. There are successorship clauses in each contract. Plus you will have labor issues (think HP/US) and the lack of fleet commonality will only increase costs.

But hey, what do I know, I've only been doing this for 20 years......


User currently offlineCzbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 973 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9501 times:

Quoting A5XX (Reply 10):
And what about videoconference technology?

Years ago the same was said for fax machines. Those who meet, meet in person for a reason. Yes there's dinner, entertainment etc in the offing, but in the final analysis, a face-to-face meeting allows the participants to judge body language and other subjective things that can be hidden from the camera.

Flying will be a part of our future... but will it be BIG and infrequent, or same-old, same-old?

IMO it'll be A380-sized planes for ordinary folk (800+ pax) and Gulfstream/Dassault/Challenger for those on the upper-side of the tracks. It doesn't matter the cost of oil for the rich ones, and economies of scale will keep aviation in the grasp of ordinary-folk....

In Europe and Asia, those who have had the foresight (and population density) to invest in (electric) high-speed rail, however, much of this debate is moot.


User currently offlineLAXspotter From India, joined Jan 2007, 3650 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9220 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 16):
Frequency isn't going anywhere as long as people want it and continue to place value on it,

exactly, but I wish it were different from a Passenger POV, not a spotter  Big grin. It would do a lot to clear congestion if Airlines stopped flying multiple RJ flights instead of using a couple of 737's or A320's but like you said isnt going to happen. Now I'm not sure about this, but how are the frequencies in places were aviation is booming like China, Japan, Australia, India? I'm quite sure the frequencies here in the US are similar to those in Europe, but how are they in these other countries?



"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" Samuel Johnson
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7909 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
I'd put my money on new aircraft the same size as today's but which overall burn less fuel.
That and maybe some more consolodation and simplification of fleets will help.

I'd put my money on the imminent death of 50 - 70 seat RJ. Those will be replaced by "next generation" turboprops. E-175/-190/-195s and CRJ-900/-100s will do OK until MRJ comes to the market. Everyone and their mother in the industry will be watching this one very closely and then if it is launched and its powerplant - the Pratt's GTF - is successfull, we could expect a "next generation" of jungle jets and hopefully the long-awaited launch of the CSeries.

And no, no mammoth planes in the future. A380-800 is as big as it will get. If anything, Airbus will probably do some sort of a mid-life update with GLARE skins replaced by composite panels a'la A350XWB, Trent 900/GP7200s replaced by Trent XWB/GENx and this sort of stuff.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineAlexPorter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7819 times:

It is often said that many routes can only exist because of multiple frequencies to attract the business traveler. That said, many routes that currently have tons of frequencies (i.e. once or twice per hour per airline) can probably generally still attract enough passengers using 3 or 4 times daily schedules. Case in point: LGA-ORD on American, a popular route involving two congested airspaces. Currently this route is flown with 17 MD-80s with a capacity of approx 138 each (I have figures stating 136 and 140 on AA MD80s so I just did the median), for a total of 2346 seats flying from La Guardia to O'Hare on American Airlines each day. This route can be reduced to something like 9 or 10 A300s, for instance. Other routes can work the same way. The main problem with this type of solution is that it is long-term, as attempting to shift all the schedules now means that the airlines would not have enough of the big planes and a surplus of the smaller mainliners.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17039 posts, RR: 66
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7597 times:

Quoting A5XX (Reply 3):
I know Boeing is unlikely to develop a Trijet this big, because if you loose 150K lbs of thrust, due to an engine failure, on take off, hell can happen... They will probably develop a 4 engine mammoth airplane, just like the A380, but bigger.

That makes no sense. If you lose an engine on take off, you continue safely on the remaining engine(s) regardless of number or thrust rating. If the engines in question are 10k lb or 150k lb is irrelevant.

Quoting A5XX (Reply 10):
And what about videoconference technology? For a lot of companies, videoconference will kill air travel, in the foreseeable future. Frequency, in airline travel for businesses, might not be a requirement, anymore. Videoconference systems are getting more and more sophisticated, have higher image resolution, they use big monitors, and, in the end, after a videoconference, the only thing that's missing, is the hand shake...

People have been saying that for 20 years. I don't predict a real video conferencing revolution that will seriously threaten air travel until we have cheap wall sized screens with such high resolution that you can hardly distinguish it from reality, coupled with equivalent sound. Give it at the very least another 5-10 years. Probably more.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
And no, no mammoth planes in the future. A380-800 is as big as it will get.

Well, we might see the 380-900, but the design costs for a completely new type in this weight class are pretty gnarly as Airbus has discovered.

Quoting Czbbflier (Reply 19):

IMO it'll be A380-sized planes for ordinary folk (800+ pax) and Gulfstream/Dassault/Challenger for those on the upper-side of the tracks. It doesn't matter the cost of oil for the rich ones, and economies of scale will keep aviation in the grasp of ordinary-folk....

Where did all the ordinary biz travelers end up? Today, only the very top corporate tiers fly business jets. Most business people fly economy. Quite a few do fly long haul business class, way lower cost than a biz jet. There is and will always be a "middle ground" (using the term loosely).

Quoting A5XX (Reply 3):

What about a HUGE trijet... a la L1011, with, let's say GE90-150 engines?

Well it certainly is a cool idea, but since it's a trijet you don't need 150k engines unless we're talking much much larger than a 380. A trijet in the 380-800 weight class would "only" need roughly 100-110k lb thrust per engine. With 150k on a trijet you're talking 40-50% larger than a 380. If we see bigger jets there will be intermediate steps first.

And then you still have to solve the whole center engine conundrum.

[Edited 2007-11-10 03:55:53]

[Edited 2007-11-10 03:57:53]

[Edited 2007-11-10 03:59:26]

[Edited 2007-11-10 04:02:14]

[Edited 2007-11-10 04:08:03]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11630 posts, RR: 61
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7542 times:

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 22):
This route can be reduced to something like 9 or 10 A300s, for instance. Other routes can work the same way.

We've been through this before - in fact, there was an entire thread on this particular route, ORD-LGA. For an airline like AA, for which this is one of their most important, highest-yielding and most business-oriented routes, ORD-LGA is incredibly frequency-intensive.

Because business travelers frequent this market, they rely on a high-frequency shuttle and place extra value on it - and are willing to pay for it. They enjoy the flexibility of having a flight ever 45-60 minutes to choose from, so they can adjust their schedule flexibly as their business day progresses. That same thing could not be achieved with, say 10 A300s.


25 RJ111 : I don't think the habits of flying will really drastically change. You'll just see a slight reduction all over as prices go up. But this will be count
26 MrPorter : What about GA? If fuel costs continue to go the way they are, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford to fly as a hobby. Flying clubs and school
27 SailorOrion : People have predicted the end of travel for centuries. The Telegraph was supposed to render traveling obsolete, then the telephone, the radio, the TV,
28 MMEPHX : Yet another bubble waiting to burst. Look at the growth of oil prices this year, it's eerily similar to the dot com prices and housing bubbles of the
29 Flyorski : Why do you think this is? Do you think their is not enough oil going around to support the rise of China and India, and the consumption of the west?
30 Threepoint : When everything is running on time, I agree with your assertion. But as we all know, the delays that are mainly due to congestion in the terminal air
31 Boeing7E7 : And you're still wrong. If high cost of oil is going to have an any impact on air travel, it will cause a decline in air travel driving smaller aircr
32 MMEPHX : Firstly, demand is increasing including from places like India and China so that will have some effect on price. Secondly, many of the existing suppl
33 Cubsrule : Can you cite some data that suggest that UA's diverse fleet, as well as their extensive use of subfleets (Ted 320s, P.S. 752s, 3 subfleets of 772s, 2
34 SSTsomeday : I would suggest that major strides in fuel efficiency can and are being made in other classes of A/C, especially mid-sized. On routes where 737-sized
35 Aggieflyboi04 : All the -700's are flow by PSA also Air Wisconsion flies the -200
36 Jetdeltamsy : What nonsense. Since 9/11, price is ALWAYS an object. To individuals. To businesses. To everybody. People flock to the lowest price regardless of who
37 Caspritz78 : I read somewhere that air traffic makes about 2%-3% of the world wide oil consumption. The whole vacation cruise industry burns more oil. So my guess
38 AlexPorter : It's kind of interesting how the business travelers' inability to be satisfied by having a flight every two hours winds up clogging the airspace (and
39 Threepoint : I would argue that price has always been a prime consideration, before and since 9/11. Really? I'd love to see that stat. The sheer number of commerc
40 KarlB737 : Other than the newer Dash 8 aircraft and possibly a future newer ATR model do we see anything being developed? I say no. As has been pointed out in a
41 FUN2FLY : If this theory is true, folks will be lining up to buy the 783, right? Hasn't happened yet.
42 Avek00 : I respectfully object to the OP's assertion -- carriers with frequency will likely have the upper hand, as they will be in a better position to seek a
43 Post contains links ANother : Jet fuel is over $113 bbl. See http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm Is it my imagination or is the crack-spread increasing.
44 Starlionblue : "excessive" is a very subjective statement. If the market value is 15, the market value is 15.
45 Allstarflyer : Honestly, no, but I was thinking in broader terms concerning training costs, parts, etc. which could be trimmed down by having just two fleet-types.
46 Threepoint : Would never happen. Which passengers are going to willingly step into a 50 year old airplane on a regional flight? Yes these planes could be flown as
47 Post contains images CJAContinental : The A380 has excellent potential to be a really green airplane, though only if you utilise it properly. To be honest, although airlines are taking ad
48 Atmx2000 : Exactly how are people supposed to get to where they really want to? I can buy a reduction in frequency but not fewer destinations, given that there
49 Avek00 : In the North American aviation market, that notion has not rung true with the sole exception of BOS-NYC-WAS. Travelers may gripe about delays, but fl
50 Threepoint : Then aren't they the fools. I wouldn't pay a premium to leave on time as much as I would to arrive on time.
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...
The End Is Near For Air France's B743 ... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 22:15:38 by FlySSC
The End Is Near For The 717 posted Sun Mar 5 2006 19:13:26 by Bruce
First Air 727-100s...The End Is Near posted Mon Oct 31 2005 17:17:18 by Yow
Olympic- The End Is Near? posted Fri Jul 22 2005 19:44:19 by Beaucaire
Independence Air-the End Is Near? posted Sat Apr 16 2005 02:59:32 by IADPax
757---The End Is Near posted Fri Oct 22 2004 01:36:08 by Isitsafenow
Boeing 757 Production Line: The End Is Near. posted Mon May 3 2004 23:47:11 by American 767
Deutsche BA: And Now The End Is Near... posted Fri Feb 14 2003 17:12:10 by Andreas
Ryanair 737-200s - The End Is Nigh! posted Fri Dec 9 2005 19:46:12 by Irish251
In The End Is Delta Air Screwed? posted Thu Dec 8 2005 21:14:20 by NYC777