Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Asian Carriers - Widebodies On Short Haul, Why?  
User currently offlineSQ6807 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2008, 163 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6908 times:

There are some instances where asian carriers fly widebody planes on short haul routes, and the motivation is obvious. If you are NH or JL flying HND-ITM then even at high frequency you still need widebodies to provide capacity.

But, and I'm thinking specifically of South East Asia, here in other circumstances the asian legacy carriers fly short to medium haul routes at relativly low frequency, with wide bodied aircraft. Take SQ as an example -

SIN-MNL with a flight time of around 3.5hrs is flown 3xdaily with 777s. Why not 6xdaily with a 32S or 737?

SIN-PEN is even more remarkable. 1hr and 25mins sector and still only 3xdaily 777s (codeshared with MH, and one return 734 of theirs one the route. Is frequency not so important?

There are similar examples to be found in other airlines. It may be that there is a specific reason why each routing has developed in this way, or alternativly, maybe there is a dynamic which means frequency is not considered as important amongst South East Asian legacy carriers?

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDelta763 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6789 times:

Perhaps there are limitations in number of flights in their bilateral agreements?

Slot controlled airports?

Cheaper to operate fewer flights (rents, fees, ground crews)?

There's lots of things that could potentially play into it.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23022 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6769 times:



Quoting SQ6807 (Thread starter):
SIN-MNL with a flight time of around 3.5hrs is flown 3xdaily with 777s. Why not 6xdaily with a 32S or 737?

It's generally cheaper to fly 1 widebody than a couple of narrowbodies. If there's no demand for frequency, why fly it? You might point to two things that lead to a need for frequency: nonstop competition (that one should be obvious) and the ability to get additional frequency by connecting (a lot of hubs can support 8 flights to A and 8 flights to B even where A-B could not support 8 flights). But on a route like SIN-MNL, there isn't really a good place to connect (the whole flight is over water), so you aren't dealing with that dynamic. In other parts of the world, where you have lots of landmass rather than islands, it's different.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2241 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6726 times:

I dont' know about your specific example but in many cases it is just to make max use of an aircraft. For example AC uses much of their long haul wide bodies the same way. A flight that leaves LHR for YYZ leaves early morning and arrives in Toronto midday give or take. Rather than sit on the ground for those hours before flying YYZ to LHR again after 6pm, they fly shorthops. The 777 for example and would fly Toronto YYZ to Montreal YUL and back. Once the aircraft lands and empties it is towed to the international wing and is loaded for LHR. Ground time is kept to a minimum and full utilization of the aircraft takes place. The flights between YYZ and Montreal are quite busy anyways so they aren't exactly flying empty.

User currently offlineMptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 546 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6686 times:

Also do not forget the down time between long-hauls can be efficiently utilized to use the aircraft it its maximum utility. SQ is a prime example. For instance, look how long the QF a/c sit in LAX.... A/C sitting is not generating revenue while it is still accruing lease/finance costs.

User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6502 times:

Well, I'm sure I'm going to start something here, but in the US at least, the airlines are frequency crazy, and it's been to their detriment. They 'think' the customers want and need flights every hour, even if they never depart on schedule, and even if the end result of delays is worse than having less frequency in the first place.

Nobody truly needs the flexibility of a flight every hour ... you'll not convince me otherwise. They'd rather book on a 200 seat aircraft every 2 hours, that might depart on time, than a 75 seat RJ every hour that never leaves on time because the airport can't handle all those flights when a rain cloud appears withing 10 miles.

Of course, there are many other factors, like the airport authority allowing that many flights/hr in the first place .... but that's another discussion... probably.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6380 times:

You mention the Japanese market there.

ITM-HND.
Three competitors.
All nippon Airways
Japan Airlines
Japan Tokai Railroad: Shinkansen

NH & JL operates with high density 777s with about 500 pax
Shinkansen moves 1200 pax every 30 minutes!

On Japan-Korea we actually see quite a few narrow bodies.
On NRT-ICN you will see widebodies almost exclusively but out of other airports there are basically narrowbodies with frequency. KE, OZ, JL and NH use a lot of 737s and A320s out of the smaller airports. KIX, NRT, FUK, CTS and NGO see widebodies.

I did find one that is kind of interesting though. On Nagoya-Beijing there are two 737s and a 767. The Chinese run the 737s and JL runs the 767.

China Eastern MU744 8:50 PEK Mo, We, Fr, Su B737 (via TAO)
Japan Airlines JL601 9:50 PEK Mo, We, Th, Sa B767
Air China CA160 13:00 PEK Daily B738

On Nagoya-Shanghai there are 5 flights per day all operated with 767s or AB6. The airlines on this route are JL, NH, MU and CA.

I have a chart here with all flights out of NGO. It is quite interesting to see all the wide body movement and then look at the narrow body movement. (NOTE: Data is 2 years old) My aviation page



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineSQ772 From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 1792 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6162 times:



Quoting SQ6807 (Thread starter):
SIN-MNL with a flight time of around 3.5hrs is flown 3xdaily with 777s. Why not 6xdaily with a 32S or 737?

If SQ could fly 6x a day to MNL using their 777s or even 744s, they would. Loads between SIN and MNL are strong. Unfortunately, the filipino government has refused to grant Singapore carriers the rights to do so, citing reasons that PR doesn't mount as many flights between SIN and MNL.



There's always a better way to fly...
User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5892 times:



Quoting SQ6807 (Thread starter):
There are similar examples to be found in other airlines. It may be that there is a specific reason why each routing has developed in this way, or alternativly, maybe there is a dynamic which means frequency is not considered as important amongst South East Asian legacy carriers?

Hi SQ6807,

You probably come from a region where the business traffic isn't as dynamic as what we have here in SE Asia. Therefore, you are more accustomed to short haul narrow bodies amongst little towns.

Since you used SQ as an example, I shall ride on that. Traffic radiating from Singapore to other business hubs in the region is phenomenal. For instance between Singapore to Bangkok alone, you have 4 flights daily on SQ / TG (all 777 and 744) in addition to LX (1 x A340), CX (3 x a week 744 / 777), TR (2 x A320), FD (2 x A320), 3K (2 x A320)... and it is stil not enough! These flights go out full and there is still room for more capacity!

SIN - HKG / CGK / PVG / PEK are also sectors experiencing high volume of pax and the airlines utilise widebodies on these routes.

As far as SQ is concerned, they do not really have a choice because the smallest aircraft they have on their fleet presently is a 777-200. However, it is cleverly utilising these planes in between long hauls and it earns revenue for the company, why not? You mentioned SIN-PEN using the 777... To be more specific, this flight is only 1hr (not 1hr 25min) and amazingly the 777-300 is used! And loads are high.

What we are presently experiencing here perhaps is only specific to Asia. You can't really fit the scenarios of what you have in Australia / NZ / US and expect the same result to come out of Singapore. Our specifics here vary greatly from what you are familiar with.

I hope I managed to convince you.

Ryan



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineSQ6807 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2008, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5871 times:



Quoting SQ772 (Reply 8):
If SQ could fly 6x a day to MNL using their 777s or even 744s, they would. Loads between SIN and MNL are strong. Unfortunately, the filipino government has refused to grant Singapore carriers the rights to do so, citing reasons that PR doesn't mount as many flights between SIN and MNL.

If the protectionism of PR is as blatant as you indicate, then it is nuts. The restrictions that the Filipino government creates may support its national carrier, but not its population.

I should have provided more examples to try and avoid it being a thread that deals with them each in turn. Take a look at SQ schedules for SGN, HAN, DPS, TPE... all easily narrowbody-able sectors with 777s carrying many pax, at a low frequency.


User currently offlineSQ772 From Singapore, joined Nov 2001, 1792 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5833 times:

Quoting SQ6807 (Reply 10):
If the protectionism of PR is as blatant as you indicate, then it is nuts. The restrictions that the Filipino government creates may support its national carrier, but not its population.

Protectionism continues to thrive in many parts of the world my friend, just look at your closest neighbour  

[Edited 2008-05-29 20:19:54]


There's always a better way to fly...
User currently offlineSQ6807 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2008, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5749 times:



Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 9):
Since you used SQ as an example, I shall ride on that. Traffic radiating from Singapore to other business hubs in the region is phenomenal. For instance between Singapore to Bangkok alone, you have 4 flights daily on SQ / TG (all 777 and 744) in addition to LX (1 x A340), CX (3 x a week 744 / 777), TR (2 x A320), FD (2 x A320), 3K (2 x A320)... and it is stil not enough! These flights go out full and there is still room for more capacity!

Hi Ryanair,

I very much appreciate that SQ is a carrier which carries a lot of premium traffic - and in fact a lot of traffic full stop. What interests me is why SQ has made the choice to use widebody aircraft on short sectors, and choose capacity over frequency. I acknowledge that the 777s are (excepting the 345 which are a special case) the smallest aircraft in the SQ fleet, but presumably that has been a deliberate decision.

In European and North American markets premium business traffic between major centres is similarly important to the business of legacy carriers, but tends to be carried at high frequency, in narrowbody aircraft.

Let's take a couple of examples:

Rome to London is a similar distance to Singapore-Bangkok or Singapore-Manila. BA flies five days daily between FCO and LHR using 320 series aircract. They could instead fly three times a day, with a 777 and provide a similar number of seats. My interest is in why BA chooses the narrow body/high frequency model, whereas carriers like SQ favour high capacity/low(er) frequency.

Flights between ORD and NYC (LGA, EWR, JFK) are served by narrowbodies at high frequency. The airlines that ply these routes could easily choose widebodies at a lower frequency, but choose not to.

SQ has a business model that is the envy of many an airline - I'm just interested in why it is their particular practise to fly bigger planes, at lesser frequencies, than airlines serving other important business markets.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5749 times:



Quoting SQ6807 (Reply 10):
I should have provided more examples to try and avoid it being a thread that deals with them each in turn. Take a look at SQ schedules for SGN, HAN, DPS, TPE... all easily narrowbody-able sectors with 777s carrying many pax, at a low frequency.

If you look at all those routes there is a significant amount of belly cargo carried. If a narrow body was used it would take several frequencies to make the same lift available. so, it's just not economical to use a narrowbody on those routes. SQ has Silk Air to use on the routes that don't justify a 777. And there are several, such as HKT. Frequencies are the key there, it is a leisure route so yields aren't that high and it's cheaper to run 2 320 flights/ day than one 777 flight/day.

In addition, if you look at the other routes you cited, those are fairly important business routes so there is a greater demand for premium traffic. Thus, increased yields.

I can assure you, in SQ's case, if the business wasn't there they wouldn't use a widebody.


User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5685 times:



Quoting SQ6807 (Reply 10):
I should have provided more examples to try and avoid it being a thread that deals with them each in turn. Take a look at SQ schedules for SGN, HAN, DPS, TPE... all easily narrowbody-able sectors with 777s carrying many pax, at a low frequency.

Well... Why fly so many 737s to these destinations every hour when customers have come to expect a certain level of cabin offerings from you in a comfortable 777?

Anyway not ALL destinations can support an hourly narrowbody shuttle like you wished. It is better to gather these numbers from connecting passengers, lump the together with O&D pax, and pack them ALL into a 777.



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineSQ6807 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2008, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5665 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 13):
If you look at all those routes there is a significant amount of belly cargo carried. If a narrow body was used it would take several frequencies to make the same lift available. so, it's just not economical to use a narrowbody on those routes.

That makes some sense - I frequently forget that us passengers aren't the only things that go in the planes. And looking at how happy SQ is to have MI serve leisure destinations at high frequency really adds to your thesis. The four daily MI SIN-HKT flights is about 600(ish) seats, and could be similary served seat wise through two 772s. But HKT isn't as significant a carho source as many of the other cities we have been looking at.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 13):
you, in SQ's case, if the business wasn't there they wouldn't use a widebody.

I'm certainly not suggesting that SQ has any trouble filling their wideboides - just wondering why they wouldn't prefer to fill twice as many narrowbodies on the same sectors, as is SOP in North America and Europe.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23022 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5631 times:



Quoting SQ6807 (Reply 12):
The airlines that ply these routes could easily choose widebodies at a lower frequency, but choose not to.

2 things to keep in mind...

1) When you have a competitor offering a lot of frequency, that makes moving to less frequency decidedly unattractive

2) US carriers have comparatively large existing narrowbody fleets. Let's assume for a moment that less frequency on widebodies is better. Is it enough better that the carriers can justify the cost of selling off a bunch of narrowbodies and replacing them with widebodies? That requires a much larger economic advantage to make it worthwhile than what's required for SQ (which lacks this 'baggage') to acquire a widebody rather than a couple of narrowbodies.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5617 times:



Quoting SQ6807 (Reply 15):
I'm certainly not suggesting that SQ has any trouble filling their wideboides - just wondering why they wouldn't prefer to fill twice as many narrowbodies on the same sectors, as is SOP in North America and Europe.

As mentioned, we AREN'T in America. What is SOP there, isn't SOP here.



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5600 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 13):
I can assure you, in SQ's case, if the business wasn't there they wouldn't use a widebody.

I agree with your analysis of some of the routes you cited. However, it seems to me that SQ is also attempting to maximise aircraft utilisation. Additional utilisation does not have capital costs associated with it, making it economical to deploy a 777 on routes where the demand may not be there to justify it. A fully utilised 777 may be cheaper in total cost(operational and near zero capital costs) terms than a NB with capital costs.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5531 times:



Quoting SQ6807 (Reply 15):
just wondering why they wouldn't prefer to fill twice as many narrowbodies on the same sectors, as is SOP in North America and Europe.

Repeat after me, CARGO, CARGO, CARGO.....

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):
I agree with your analysis of some of the routes you cited. However, it seems to me that SQ is also attempting to maximise aircraft utilisation. Additional utilisation does not have capital costs associated with it, making it economical to deploy a 777 on routes where the demand may not be there to justify it. A fully utilised 777 may be cheaper in total cost(operational and near zero capital costs) terms than a NB with capital costs.

In theory, you are correct. But, your analysis would only be valid if SQ had no widebody aircraft. They do and the same utilisation issues face MI that face SQ. Believe it or not, SQ has a fairly rigorous route rationalisation process. But the simple fact is 2 narrow bodies do not equal one WB. There are some routes where SQ could carry 0 passengers and just belly cargo and still make money.


User currently offlineQualityDr From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5505 times:

A while back I flew on a 747-400 (JAL, I seem to remember) from Kaohsiung KHH to Taipei TPE. That's 156 miles. We flew a lot farther than that, with maneuvering and queueing for landing. About half the occupants left the airplane, a few others got on, and we continued to Narita; which isn't that long a flight either (1338 miles, I think).

Flight was pretty full on the short first leg. We barely had time to get the gear up before we were circling for a landing.

That's the shortest leg on a big jet for me, I think.

Another one that's not very long, though, is Hong Kong HKG to Xiamen XMN. Round about 290 miles. Dragonair/Cathay flights, several a day, mostly with A330 aircraft. And always full when I'm on it...

QD



All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure. -- Mark Twain
User currently offlineSQ6807 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2008, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5469 times:



Quoting Ryanair!!! (Reply 17):
As mentioned, we AREN'T in America. What is SOP there, isn't SOP here.

Absolutely agree. I'm not trying to say it is the same, nor that it should be. What I'm trying to figure out is why it is different. So far a bunch of interesting reasons have been provided:

- Cargo is better carried on widebodies
- Allows for better utilisation of long haul fleets (I have some qualms with this, as SQ has a dedicated regional 777 fleet too)
- Creature comforts of widebodies, and
- If no airline 'breaks' and offers high frequency, then there's no reason for any airline to follow. The suggestion here is that the way the airline industry developed in Nth America and Europe leant itself to high frequency, but that the pattern just didn't emerge in the same way in asia. That doesn't preclude the possibility of another carrier 'breaking' in asia, and offering high frequency services though I guess?


User currently offlineDocPepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

There isn't any point for an airline like SQ to have a narrowbody shorthaul fleet, since most of its longhaul flights depart late at night and arrive back in SIN early in the morning. The 777s then do short haul regional routes throughout the day and depart for Australia/Europe in the evening. This enables maxmimum fleet utlisation. If you notice, most SQ aircraft do not stay on the ground for a long time

Eg the 77W would do:

SQ333 Depart CDG 12:25 Arrive SIN 06:55
SQ862 Depart SIN 11:00 Arrive HKG 14:45
SQ861 Depart HKG 16:00 Arrive SIN 19:45
SQ334 Depart SIN 23:40 Arrive CDG 06:55

or a 772 rotation as such:

SQ479 Depart JNB 13:15 Arrive SIN 05:40
SQ102 Dpeart SIN 07:05 Arrive KUL 08:05
SQ103 Depart KUL 08:55 Arrive SIN 09:50
SQ108 Depart SIN 12:45 Arrive KUL 13:40
SQ109 Depart KUL 14:30 Arrive SIN 15:25
SQ116 Depart SIN 17:00 Arrive KUL 17:55
SQ117 Depart KUL 18:50 Arrive SIN: 19:45
SQ352 Depart SIN 01:10 Arrive CPH 07:50

etc etc etc etc


I don't see why SQ needs any more than say 6 frequencies a day from SIN to KUL, HKG or BKK. There's basically a flight leaving every 2 hours from 8am to 8pm. Business travellers will just change their times to suit the departure times.

Further, here are the flights SQ operate that have a block time of 4 hours or less:

Kuala Lumpur x6 daily
Bangkok x6 daily
Penang x3 daily
Jakarta x8 daily
Bali x3 daily
Manila x3 daily
Guangzhou 10 weekly
Hong Kong x6 daily
Taipei x3 daily
Chennai x10 weekly
Colombo x3 daily


That's only about 15% of all destinations that SQ serves, so there really isn't any point having a narrowbody fleet dedicated to those destinations alone.


User currently offlineSQ6807 From New Zealand, joined Jan 2008, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5364 times:



Quoting DocPepz (Reply 22):
That's only about 15% of all destinations that SQ serves, so there really isn't any point having a narrowbody fleet dedicated to those destinations alone.

Well analysed.

We've talked a lot about SQ. I know MH have a large 734 fleet. TG have narrowbodies too, but use widebodies on some core domestic routes HKT-BKK-CNX and regional routes too, like SGN. How bout others?


User currently offlineDocPepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5304 times:

The following gives better utilisation:

SQ479 Depart JNB 13:15 Arrive SIN 05:40
SQ102 Depart SIN 07:05 Arrive KUL 08:05
SQ103 Depart KUL 08:55 Arrive SIN 09:50
SQ108 Depart SIN 12:45 Arrive KUL 13:40
SQ109 Depart KUL 14:30 Arrive SIN 15:25
SQ186 Depart SIN 17:40 Arrive SGN 18:45
SQ185 Depart SGN 19:50 Arrive SIN 22:40
SQ352 Depart SIN 01:00 Arrive CPH 07:50
etc etc etc

SQ246 Depart BNE 23:45 Arrive SIN 05:45
SQ106 Depart SIN 08:30 Arrive KUL 09:55
SQ107 Depart KUL 10:25 Arrive SIN 11:20
SQ878 Depart SIN 12:30 Arrive TPE 17:10
SQ879 Depart TPE 18:15 Arrive SIN 22:40
SQ255 Depart SIN 00:10 Arrive BNE 09:45
etc etc etc

Can go on forever really!


User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5090 times:



Quoting SQ6807 (Reply 23):
Well analysed.

We've talked a lot about SQ. I know MH have a large 734 fleet. TG have narrowbodies too, but use widebodies on some core domestic routes HKT-BKK-CNX and regional routes too, like SGN. How bout others?

Malaysia Airlines has a vast domestic route to cover. Many of these airports simply cannot accomodate a widebody and hence they have one of the largest 737 fleets outside of the US to serve domestic and regional routes. And since they have such a large fleet of 737s, why not use them of routes around the region like HAN, SGN, SIN, MED etc... They can because they do not have similar widebody utilisation parameters that SQ faces.

Whereas for TG, their widebodied domestic sectors cover these core routes you mentioned because of the high passenger numbers due to internation connections, or simply an international flights call directly at that airport (eg. Australia - Phuket - Bangkok). So you answered your own questions, really.

So although we are in Asia, when segmented, you would see that ALL airlines work under very different circumstances to justify their fleet make up.



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
25 Gte439u : Given the profitability of Asian carriers, wouldn't the the better question be 'why aren't North American and European carriers following the SQ/TG/C
26 Jfk777 : Given Singapore , CATHAY, ANA & JAL have tremendous amounts of passenger to move within few airports, A330 or 777 are comon. SIA is a one airport coun
27 Bond007 : IMO it was because the airlines in the US 'broke' (see below), bought fleets of RJs, because they thought the public demanded hourly flights between
28 Kappel : You are already seeing that the US airlines are moving away from the small regional jets (less than 70 seats) and going to the larger aircraft (CRJ 9
29 AirNZ : I fully agree with you 100%, and no practical need whatever for it. Well, to me you've answered your own question......why would any sensible airline
30 Aviasian : Frankly if Amreican carriers were to abandon the operation of high frequencies with small capacity aircraft and regional jets . . . they will bring ab
31 Cubsrule : What routes in the US have hourly flights on RJs?
32 Point8six : I'm sure that if SIA felt that they could use a narrow bodied aircraft on the Manila route 6 times daily, rather than a wide-body, they would:- a). ne
33 Jbernie : At least for QF I think the counter is that the time spent in LAX is for maintenance, and when they are in SYD or MEL they are on shorter/more normal
34 San747 : SEA-PDX is half-hourly on props... BOS-LGA-DCA has MQ ERJs on it with pretty close to hourly frequency...
35 Cubsrule : My point was that the vast majority of routes in the US with a lot of frequency (Chicago-MSP; ATL-New York) see little or no RJ service.
36 San747 : That is true... Look at LAX-PHX for example. At least 40 flights daily, with less than 5 RJs scheduled.
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...
Are BMI Upgrading Seats On Short-haul Aircraft? posted Tue Jan 22 2008 06:59:01 by 8herveg
BA's Profits On Short-haul. Your Help Please posted Wed Sep 5 2007 11:55:41 by Concorde001
Turbulence On Short Haul Flights posted Tue Jul 11 2006 15:40:27 by LY777
My Personal Airshow On Short Haul Flights! Yayers! posted Tue Apr 18 2006 20:58:22 by RootsAir
Virgin A340-600 On A Short Route,,,,,WHY. posted Fri Dec 19 2003 04:53:27 by 3lions
In What Airplane Would You Fly On A Short Haul? posted Sun Sep 23 2001 16:51:05 by KONSTANTINOS
Swissair A330s On Short Haul Routes posted Fri Jul 28 2000 02:53:28 by Jet Setter
SQ/Asian Long-haul Aircraft On Short Routes? posted Sat Nov 3 2007 20:51:35 by QantasHeavy
Why Dont South Asian Carriers Use 747s To Dubai posted Sun Jan 20 2008 08:09:49 by 777way
Why Does SQ Not Have Short Haul Planes? posted Mon Jan 7 2008 03:28:16 by VinnieWinnie