RamperYHZ From Canada, joined May 2008, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 13 hours ago) and read 4022 times:
WS has been doing this all along, and they had a pretty good profit Q1-2008. An example would be WS 197, which operates YHZ-YYZ-YEG-YLW-YYJ, and yes we do get YLW and YYJ direct passengers out of YHZ despite the fact that it would be much easier (albeit more expensive) to fly to either YYC or YEG direct (flights 229 and 391 respectively) and then connect at one of those airports to either YLW or YYJ.
Airnerd From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 3662 times:
At a regional level this is already happening at QX with their many "triangle" routes. And now that they are getting rid of all their 37 seat aircraft in favor of the more efficient 76 seaters, we'll see more of these. I wouldn't be surprised to see the "triangles" become more like "quadrilaterals" with additional stops inserted.
EXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 12 hours ago) and read 3515 times:
Quoting 777way (Thread starter): Do you think it would make more sense to run multistop flights again than half emty point to point ones with the rising fuel?
In the domestic US, oh God No!!!!!! A-B-C (Hub)...unless there is substantial demand from A-B like AUS-ELP-PHX, teh tag from A-B is a giant money loser, which is why they were dropped in the first place....ie PIA-MLI-DEN
AerorobNZ From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7334 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2154 times:
Quoting SeansasLCY (Reply 2): EK operate a few such services like DXB-BKK-HKG, DXB-CGK-KUL, DXB-CMB-SIN.
And longer DXB-BKK-SYD-AKL and DXB-SIN-BNE-AKL.
Actually I think that yes over the next few years those kinds of flights will make a bit of a comeback as smaller aircraft more traditionally associated with short haul are brought out with ER capabilities like the 737-900ER and A319ER. These could be used on longer flights instead of larger aircraft, as carriers try to offset the price of fuel against empty seats and wasted payload. This will particularly be the case with the small-medium sized carriers I think. Already we see airlines needing a minimum of 70% pax load just to cover the fuel bill before any crewing costs , cargo profits and passenger yields are taken into account, that will only increase in the current climate.
MMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1913 times:
Quoting R2rho (Reply 12): Dumb question: why do they call them "milk runs"?
The most common definition is that milk run is a routine, uneventful sortie derived from the days when trains delivered milk each morning to multiple locations in the same regular, uneventful pattern day after day.
on the topic, if oil continues at high prices and some smaller stations that currently have non-stop service in small RJs/props want to continue a viable airlink then they may have to accept a milk run style service. Maybe not convenient but if that is what it takes to keep service I'm sure many places would take it.
A milk run is a multi-stop flight, like Air France's MIA-PAP-FDF-PTP-CAY flight which takes longer to complete than the non-stop ORY-CAY.
Almost all of WN's flights are "milk runs" if you view it from the perspective of the airframe and/or crew. However they are ALSO structured so the passenger has as many 0 and 1 stop flights between thier desired city pairs.