Mbm3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 788 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6307 times:
CO sends the 762/764/777 to HKG as referenced in the above post. You will see some interesting routes getting the equipment there, including some fun surprises for passengers boarding a flight to HNL on a 777. I believe last year there were several times where a 777 did a routing of EWR-HNL-GUM in passenger service, then ferried onwards.
Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
Ual747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6280 times:
I've always wondered why their MX is outsourced to such a far destination and not done in the US. Is it that much cheaper to fly those aircraft back and forth from HKG than to do it in the US?
Mbm3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 788 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6129 times:
Quoting Ual747 (Reply 6): I've always wondered why their MX is outsourced to such a far destination and not done in the US. Is it that much cheaper to fly those aircraft back and forth from HKG than to do it in the US?
I think the short answer is yes, more so for CO than DL as CO rotates most of their wide bodies through the Pacific and thus can produce revenue on their way to/from HKG.
My question is what deciding factors go in to the decision to simply ferry the aircraft - such as the 762 noted above that flew HKG-HNL-EWR - rather than fly it to GUM and start revenue service.
Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
Jetsetter629 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 410 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5676 times:
Quoting Mbm3 (Reply 8): My question is what deciding factors go in to the decision to simply ferry the aircraft - such as the 762 noted above that flew HKG-HNL-EWR - rather than fly it to GUM and start revenue service
AznMadSci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3542 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4954 times:
Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 11): CO flies GUM-HKG-GUM, so when they fly those B767 to HKG most likely CO don't ferry the aircraft but use it for the actual CO GUM-HKG-GUM flights.
I know that CS usually operates this route on a 738, but I read recently that they will be ending the GUM-HKG-GUM flight. Can anyone verify this?
The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
Jgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4734 times:
Quoting AznMadSci (Reply 13): I know that CS usually operates this route on a 738, but I read recently that they will be ending the GUM-HKG-GUM flight. Can anyone verify this?
Yep, they killed it. I don't remember when exactly but or some reason June sticks out in my mind.
CX flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2463 times:
Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 11): CO flies GUM-HKG-GUM, so when they fly those B767 to HKG most likely CO don't ferry the aircraft but use it for the actual CO GUM-HKG-GUM flights.
Actually they always ferried the 767s. Never once did they operate the CS909/910 flight which has always been a 738.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21507 posts, RR: 24 Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2444 times:
Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 11): CO flies GUM-HKG-GUM, so when they fly those B767 to HKG most likely CO don't ferry the aircraft but use it for the actual CO GUM-HKG-GUM flights.
I doubt it. That would mean no aircraft to operate the return flight that day.
Jgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2366 times:
Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 15): Strange CO would drop GUM-HKG, specially when GUM does have open skies with China.
Really? That doesn't sound right. The US uses cabotage laws to keep PAL from transporting pax between the mainland US and GUM. Seems strange then that Guam could have open skys with china when the federal government doesn't.
When CO announced it making cuts I was hoping they would keep the HKG flight at least once a week. However, One problem with the flight was that got in HKG at like 10pm and the return leg left about an hour later and got into GUM at like 4am.
Ktachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1756 times:
Quoting Ual747 (Reply 6): Is it that much cheaper to fly those aircraft back and forth from HKG than to do it in the US?
My best guess would be yes, as someone stated already, CO does have large Pacific ops. Even DL used to have maintenance for their B767 done by ACE aviation in YVR, but since the Canadian dollar became so strong, they moved it to HAECO. So if DL does this tactic as well, I think CO has a good economic reason to do the same as well.
COFreqFlyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 397 posts, RR: 3 Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1627 times:
Quoting Jgarrido (Reply 18): However, One problem with the flight was that got in HKG at like 10pm and the return leg left about an hour later and got into GUM at like 4am.
This is actually quite normal for many flights out and back to GUM, as CO1 arrives from HNL around 5p local, and then departs as CO2 back to HNL at 6a local. The large arrival group between 4a and 5a allows connections to HNL and of course from there IAH, EWR, LAX, et al. I've done that many times going to/from CNS.
ADXMatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 933 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1504 times:
If there is anyone in KBGR there is a CO 767-400 N76054 sitting there getting an unscheduled engine change. It diverted there on the 21st enroute to Milan.
I don't know if there was another thread on this or not.
Mbm3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 788 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1495 times:
Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 22): If there is anyone in KBGR there is a CO 757-400 N76054 sitting there getting an unscheduled engine change. It diverted there on the 21st enroute to Milan.
You might want to upgrade your equipment to 767-400 ADXMatt, though a 754 would be REALLY long!
Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
EWRCabincrew From United States of America, joined May 2006, 5522 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 22): If there is anyone in KBGR there is a CO 757-400 N76054 sitting there getting an unscheduled engine change. It diverted there on the 21st enroute to Milan.
I can tell you a 757 was ferried up to get the crew/passengers and bring them back to EWR.
26 Mbm3: Perhaps a 762: http://flightaware.com/live/flight/C...0/history/20080922/0503Z/KEWR/KBGR[Edited 2008-09-23 10:23:00]
27 EWRCabincrew: It was ship 107, a 752. Looking at the crew pairing now. Here is the return info. Seems to be a mistake on the part of flightaware. http://flightawar
28 Mbm3: " target=_blank>http://flightaware.com/live/flight/C...A1941 I stand correct - flightaware must have been confused as that flight number was used for
29 EWRCabincrew: CO9980 was the flight number assigned for the EWR-BGR segment. Flightaware apparently had the glitch.
30 Par13del: It probably was the case when oil was much cheaper, however, there is now a caveat. Since the work was out-sourced when fuel was cheaper, what happen