Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Two Planes When One Would Work?  
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20244 posts, RR: 59
Posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 10025 times:

At 8:16AM UA flies a 763 IAD SFO arriving at 11:04AM (Flt. 874)) 45 minutes later they fly an A320 (Flt. 285) on the same route. By the time they sort around the departures and landings and routing, both A/C frequently arrive within 30 minutes of each-other.

Similarly, I've seen UA fly, say, a 752 and A320 within 15 minutes of each-other on many, many, many destinations.

Why would you fly two A/C so closely spaced? Now you have to service four engines and pay two captains and two FO's while putting wear and tear on two AC when you could have flown a single 772 in a 2-class configuration (or with the A320 and 763 a single 744)?

This only adds to airport congestion (and it's not as if IAD and SFO have tons of wide-open slots) and increases CASM. So why does UA do it?

92 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2134 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9948 times:

Well United have only six 2-class 772s, but have 97 757s and over 90 A320s (incl. ex-Ted).
Perhaps easier to find two of the latter than one of the former? Just a guess.



The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offlineAviationwiz From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9925 times:

Other airlines do this as well. It allows for more connections than just the one flight would, as it could make or break a legal connection time with just one flight. It also works out well for aircraft rotation.


Proudly from the Home of the Red Tail.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26025 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9902 times:

Such flying is called wingtip to wingtip flying, and really happens to all airlines particularly for large hub connection banks.

Demand rises and ebbs on routes, and an airline really never has the optimal mix of planes in its fleet so it must do the best it can and comes up with network scheduling tricks such as flying multiple frequencies within a short time frame almost on top of each other.

Anyhow, from a marketing point of view, multiple frequencies tend always to be better then having fewer spread out flights that might be on larger equipment.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2280 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9899 times:

Ignoring that there may be volume reasons to do this, ie. you can easily cancel a fllight if there isn't sufficient volume and that flying a half full 772 would be more expensive. AC flies a number of aircraft during peak periods 30 minutes apart on the busy YYZ/YUL corridor and does so for passenger convenience. Some of the aircraft are wide bodied.

Sometimes flights fly with some revenue for repositioning reasons. Slotting of aircraft can be incredibly complex and lead to some bizzare situations. I have flown on an AC Jetz A320 aircraft (all first class and usually for charter/sports teams) when the aircraft has needed to be repositioned for a charter flight. I suppose they figured some paying customers on the flight is better than flying empty.

Sometimes that aircraft and/or crew goes on to fly to some other location. The aircraft ended it's day in one city and needs to get back to the orginating city to fly some other city pairs.

AC flies a lot of their widebodied jets that do the evening departures to Europe on shorthaul flights between the return leg from Europe and departure again. IE. A 77W will squeeze in a return flight from YYZ to YUL before its European flight overnight. So sometimes it can be aircraft utilization.

Sometimes one flight is for the normal business between city pairs. A second flight can be to gather connecting passengers from regional feeder airlines or other arrivals.


User currently offlineUPSMD11 From United States of America, joined May 2003, 819 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9863 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can remember back in the 90's when I flew US weekly from SDF to EWR. I always hubbed through PIT and every evening there were two flights leaving at almost the same time from EWR to PIT. Worked out great if one was oversold, etc. and I actually got moved to the later one a few times after accepting a bump on the 1st one.

Does DL do this on hub to hub routes, etc.? I fly them most of the time now but didn't think they did this.

John


User currently offlineCoal From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2113 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9808 times:

This mostly happens only in the US and that is why US airlines are chronically bankrupt. When will they learn that, say, 7x daily on 777/747 is much better economically than 20x on 737/A320, while still providing a reasonable amount of flight timing options.

When will the US airlines ditch their model for one more like those of CX, SQ, or the Chinese or Japanese airlines and start using more widebodies domestically?

Cheers
Coal



Nxt Flts: VA SYD-LAX | VX LAX-FLL | B6 FLL-BOG-FLL | VX FLL-LAX | VA LAX-SYD | VA SYD-PER-SYD
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26025 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9743 times:

Quoting Coal (Reply 6):
When will the US airlines ditch their model for one more like those of CX, SQ, or the Chinese or Japanese airlines and start using more widebodies domestically?

Asia cannot be compared to the US. The geography, national boundaries, and route and airport restrictions made widebodies critical.

Instead look to Europe, where frequent narrow bodies rule as in the US. For instance LH just retired its last A300 which were used in Europe, and as I recall outside of BA with a few remaining 767 flights, there really is no major European carrier left that uses widebody size in lieu of added frequency on short hops.

[Edited 2009-07-16 20:13:57]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSkisandy From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 8232 times:

Coal is 100% correct. It is incredible how for example AA's replacing 1 DC-10 with 2 MD-80s, flying within 5 minutes of each other to the same destination, was hailed as great progress and incredibly wise scheduling, about 10 -15 years ago.

For some reason Americans love frequent schedules, which gives them a flight every 30 minutes between some city pairs, on the same airline! That each and every flight is an hour late, due to congestion, apparently is something that is totally acceptable, and often blamed on someone else - e.g. GOD (a few rain showers - an act of GOD, hence all flights are 1-2 hours late).

Europeans aren't any better, Asians do get it. They are the ones flying the A380, which ignorant Americans are belittling and laughing at.

These are the same people who think that a 737 is "roomy", compared to an MD80.

This isn't even an Airbus vs. Boeing issue. Most Americans have never flown on a 747.

They fly narrow bodies coast to coast, between huge cities, where the largest planes would make the most sense. The American carriers are simply incompetent, when it comes to running a profitable company, or providing a minimum of comfort to their customers.


User currently offlineGeorgebush From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 8173 times:



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 8):
They are the ones flying the A380, which ignorant Americans are belittling and laughing at.

DO you know how long it takes to fuel, load, and board an A380? Now compare that to a 737...

If your flying like the OP said IAD-SFO and your flight cancels due to (an act of God, or whatever you like to call it.... Ive never heard of that type of delay, but w.e) your gonna be dam happy that there is another plane leaving in 30 minutes right behind it... But if your A380 canceled, well bud lets just say you'd have some problems...



Al Gore invented global warming.
User currently offlineGeorgebush From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 679 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 8153 times:



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 8):
They fly narrow bodies coast to coast, between huge cities, where the largest planes would make the most sense. The American carriers are simply incompetent, when it comes to running a profitable company, or providing a minimum of comfort to their customers.

They are incompetent? Hardly. Most airlines (non-US) are state run, or the state has a lot of the stake in the company. In the U.S. it is a free-for-all and a much more competitive market.



Al Gore invented global warming.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 7991 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
Such flying is called wingtip to wingtip flying, and really happens to all airlines particularly for large hub connection banks.

That sometimes happens on longhaul international routes also. Since you mentioned UA, they have two IAD-FRA (744 and 772) and two IAD-LHR flights (772 and 763) departing within 30 minutes of each other.

Of BA's 4 daily HKG-LHR flights, 3 depart within 80 minutes, including 2 744s 25 minutes apart (2315 and 2340) and a 772 less than an hour later (0035).

Two of CX's flights HKG-LHR also depart 40 minutes apart, both 744s, at 2355 and 0035.

VS HKG-LHR (A340-600) also departs at 2325, so during that 80 minute period from 2315 to 0035 there are 6 nonstops from HKG to LHR.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7857 times:

Quoting Skisandy (Reply 8):
The American carriers are simply incompetent, when it comes to running a profitable company, or providing a minimum of comfort to their customers.

No they are not, because frequency is something people value and they are providing it to their customers. Airlines have to weigh the costs and benefits of larger aircraft/reduced frequency versus smaller aircraft/increased frequency. What we have today is nothing more than what they have calculated to be the best deal they can provide in a highly competitive environment.

What can be done to change this calculation? Airports that maximize income and that aren't bound by price controls or landing fees based on weight. Use something similar to Yield Management the airlines use.

PS: this is a great time for deregulating airport pricing, and even privatizing. Boeing and Airbus, and perhaps even Embraer might join them, are thinking about the next 737/320 replacement. A change in policy of this magnitude would most likely affect the design of these aircraft.

[Edited 2009-07-17 18:50:00]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4412 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7821 times:



Quoting Coal (Reply 6):
This mostly happens only in the US and that is why US airlines are chronically bankrupt.

Not at all true. Many of the higher-volume Europe-Asia routes feature wingtip flights, as do some Asian markets into NRT.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7744 times:



Quoting Skisandy (Reply 8):
Coal is 100% correct.

No, he is not "100% correct" as he is oversimplifying why this happens, blaming it entirely on stupidity.

There are many factors, including repositioning, utilization, fleet flexibility, aircraft availability, continuing flight numbers, etc. that lead to this. This kind of thing can also happen due to RONing, demand in the morning, etc.

Anyway.

No market around the world is as large as the USA. That we can fly 5 hours and remain inside the borders of the country (without even counting Alaska and Hawaii) is something that can't happen in too many countries. That we have so many different routes for this type of flight, is something that doesn't happen in many other countries. That so many of these airports are also international gateways happens in few other places.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26025 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7635 times:

Can any one imagine the how uncompetitive US airline A would be that solely if it offered 2x daily NYC-LA service with 747s with total 800 seats compared to airline B that runs 6 daily A320s in the same market with those 800 seats?

All other things being equal airline B would run circles around airline A an its 747s and be able to attract a much diverse group of travelers looking for schedule variety. I'd even venture to say airline B with A320s could derive a yield premium over airline A who would likely have discount heavier to fill its much more limited schedule while being hobbled with many more seats per departure.

From a marketing point of view, in most cases frequency trumps size.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offline413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7511 times:

But aren't you now oversimplifying that as well? If I can fly just one route with a huge airplane I can charge far less for tickets, so maybe having all these choices which just confuse and saturate the market more than supposedly "pleasing" the consumers. (which I will deny too I think that is merely made up by marketing depts to justify their self worth)

User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4952 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7468 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
Can any one imagine the how uncompetitive US airline A would be that solely if it offered 2x daily NYC-LA service with 747s with total 800 seats compared to airline B that runs 6 daily A320s in the same market with those 800 seats?

All other things being equal airline B would run circles around airline A an its 747s and be able to attract a much diverse group of travelers looking for schedule variety. I'd even venture to say airline B with A320s could derive a yield premium over airline A who would likely have discount heavier to fill its much more limited schedule while being hobbled with many more seats per departure.

From a marketing point of view, in most cases frequency trumps size.

That's apples and oranges. What we're trying to figure out is what airline has the advantage (I'll use your example)- the airline that flies one 9:00a 767-300 or 777-200 flight between JFK and LAX, or the airline that flies a 9:00a and 9:30a pair of A320s?



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineJkudall From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7442 times:

DL routinely used to do this on hub to hub routes. Up until 2-3 years ago, I remember there being a 764 SLC-ATL flight and then another 738 SLC-ATL flight scheduled just 5 minutes after. They don't do these anymore. They were full too.

User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6808 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7388 times:



Quoting Coal (Reply 6):
that is why US airlines are chronically bankrupt. When will they learn that, say, 7x daily on 777/747 is much better economically than 20x on 737/A320, while still providing a reasonable amount of flight timing options.

Exactly how many routes see a single airline offering at least 20 daily departures on a 737 or A320? Oh, and you have to exclude Southwest because they're not "chronically bankrupt."

Quoting 413x3 (Reply 16):
If I can fly just one route with a huge airplane I can charge far less for tickets, so maybe having all these choices which just confuse and saturate the market more than supposedly "pleasing" the consumers.

That's what Tower Air did, and they failed. They flew only 747's on high-volume domestic and international routes with deeply discounted fares. Granted, you got what you paid for on Tower and through some miracle they never had a fatal incident.

The problem is that you often have to discount those fares so much that you're flying people for below your costs. You could probably fill an A380 between AMA and LBB but there's almost no way on earth you could charge enough to make a profit.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Why would you fly two A/C so closely spaced? Now you have to service four engines and pay two captains and two FO's while putting wear and tear on two AC when you could have flown a single 772 in a 2-class configuration (or with the A320 and 763 a single 744)?

Well, it's possible that there might not be a need for a 2-class 772 on another route departing SFO within a reasonable turnaround time. So they'd have to fly a half-empty 772 to some other city where it wouldn't be necessary, and that would be a money-loser.


User currently offlinePanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7287 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Why would you fly two A/C so closely spaced? Now you have to service four engines and pay two captains and two FO's while putting wear and tear on two AC when you could have flown a single 772 in a 2-class configuration (or with the A320 and 763 a single 744)?

Because the 763+320 is lighter than the 772 and therefore burn less fuel.

Also the financing costs are lower especially if you are leasing and some leasing deals charge by the amount of take offs and landings as well.

On days with light traffic you can cancel one of them.

Pilots of larger planes make a lot more money than of smaller planes so the 4 vs 2 pilots argument is weak.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7256 times:



Quoting Panais (Reply 20):
Because the 763 320 is lighter than the 772 and therefore burn less fuel.

Also the financing costs are lower especially if you are leasing and some leasing deals charge by the amount of take offs and landings as well.

On days with light traffic you can cancel one of them.

Pilots of larger planes make a lot more money than of smaller planes so the 4 vs 2 pilots argument is weak.

All good points. but it doesn't matter to the "less frequent and bigger is always better" crowd. Because less frequent and bigger is always better.

Widebodies don't materialize out of thin air for use when needed, then go back into hiding when not. They are high overhead aircraft that need high utilization. So while it might make sense certain days of the week or certain weeks of the year on some routes, what of the other days or weeks?

Let's take a look at DL. They can obviously fill 764s or 777s between LAX and ATL at various times of the day, all year, but those planes are better used on other routes. So they have 763s and 757s more frequently, and the 777 only when necessary to connect on to SYD. because the 764s are now better used internationally, they were pulled off these routes. If they were less expensive and more profitable than running more frequent smaller planes, DL would NOT have done this. Unless of course they are just idiots who don't know anything about fleet and route planning.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1737 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7214 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
Well, it's possible that there might not be a need for a 2-class 772 on another route departing SFO within a reasonable turnaround time. So they'd have to fly a half-empty 772 to some other city where it wouldn't be necessary, and that would be a money-loser.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 21):
Widebodies don't materialize out of thin air for use when needed, then go back into hiding when not.

I think these facts are often overlooked by those who don't agree with the concept of wingtip flights. While UA may theoretically be able to roughly replace 2 morning IAD-SFO flights with a single morning IAD-SFO 744, they can't split that 744 in half when it arrives at SFO and send part of it to SEA and part of it to DEN. This will often be one of the reasons an airline chooses to fly wingtip flights only a few minutes apart rather than one larger plane.

However, keep in mind that on hub-to-hub flights, 30+ minutes between departures isn't insignificant either. A fair number of inbound UA flights would be arriving at times that can't make connections to the 8:16 AM IAD-SFO departure but can make legal connections to the departure 45 minutes later.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15812 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7206 times:



Quoting Steex (Reply 22):
they can't split that 744 in half when it arrives at SFO and send part of it to SEA and part of it to DEN.

I agree that this is often overlooked. Smaller planes must be repositioned and utilized along with the widebodies.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7182 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 23):
I agree that this is often overlooked. Smaller planes must be repositioned and utilized along with the widebodies.

There's also the need to RON aircraft for early morning departures, and RONing a widebody is wasteful. Often you'll get one plane arriving at 10pm, another before 11pm, then both RONing, and one leaving at 6:30AM and the other at 7:15AM. It might seem to make sense to run a plane twice as large and split the difference, but that would mean that some would miss their connection coming in for the night, and others might miss their business appointments leaving too late in the morning.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
25 XT6Wagon : The largest airline in the US by domestic passengers is..... Southwest. Thier largest plane is a.... 737-700. Perhaps this should indicate something t
26 BMI727 : Certainly. Usually at night those widebodies are in the middle of crossing an ocean. It seems that most of the domestic widebodies that are left fly
27 IAirAllie : Really what are you basing this statement on? I've been flying all around europe and asia this last week. I was just noticing the other day at the ai
28 DeltaCTO : Absolutely correct .... back in the days of the DFW hub, DL would schedule a L10 and 727-200 DFW-ATL within just a few minutes of each other - during
29 SHUPirate1 : I think it's also forgotten that there aren't a large number of airlines outside of North America that have multiple hubs, with frequencies between th
30 Mayor : Where to start........using your logic, the airline flying 2x daily A380 from LAX-JFK is better than the airline that flies narrow bodies, every hour
31 413x3 : but really how affordable was Tower air to the general public? and was the general public flying as much back then compared to now? I would not be su
32 Mayor : Actually, people were probably flying MORE then than they are now. IIRC Tower Air, along with PA/DL were the only flag carriers operating from JFK-TL
33 AirNZ : Okay, tell me all those "most" airlines which you claim are state-run? Remember now, you clearly said "most" non-US airlines!!!
34 Jerseyguy : Actually the answer is 1. BWI-SAN. and they have many almost transcon routes like PHL-PHX PHL-LAS, BWI-PHX, BWI-LAS, IAD-LAS, ISP-LAS, MHT-LAS, MHT-P
35 BrouAviation : There are nights when HV sends 3 x a 738 from AMS to Las Palmas in 40 minutes. One thinks why don't they charter a 763 for the season..
36 Mayor : Are all of those non-stop? The only one that is remotely "transcontinental" (coast to coast) is the BWI-SAN. The others don't qualify in this discuss
37 Post contains links Jerseyguy : Yep. Goto http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html and make sure to click on show nonstop service only.
38 Mayor : And a smaller route system. Can you fly from BWI to BIL or GTF or FAR, etc. on WN? How about MDW to GRB or DLH or MSN? No? Didn't think so.
39 BartBus : Don't forget that higher operation cost are no problem as long as yields are higher. Sure it is cheaper to fly one 777-200 instead of three A320's. Bu
40 ScottB : Tower Air was cheap, cheap, cheap -- and you got what you paid for. Cheap as in the often-bandied-about $99 JFK-LAX/SFO fare. He did say that WN does
41 RJ111 : You can't really compare Europe to America because their are more airlines in Europe and each one is restricted to their home country. Airlines don't
42 Prebennorholm : It depends on which 737 type, 737-600 or 737-900ER. Boarding a 550 pax A380 will likely be somewhat faster than boarding a 200 pax 739. Two air bridg
43 MAH4546 : IAD and SFO don't have slots. U.S. airports do not have slots with five notable exceptions - LGA, DCA, SNA, LGB and HPN.[Edited 2009-07-18 14:38:02]
44 Viscount724 : I don't think Pan Am ever served TLV or even had traffic rights to Israel. The major US carrier to Israel in those days was TWA. They aren't "restric
45 Acabgd : The voice of reason. Thank you, I thought I was alone thinking what you've just said.
46 Acabgd : The same thing with airport restrictions seems to be happening in the US. Everyone is saying how the big hubs are too busy, with very little slots. T
47 Acabgd : I thought there are a lot of complains about overly congested major airports in the US? If that is true, then simply make it much more expensive for
48 Prebennorholm : It really isn't all that simple. Such long range planes like 747 and 777 carry along dozens of tonnes of metal which is there to support 25,000 or 30
49 N62NA : How about 8a or 9a, 12 noon, 4pm and 6p or 7p? That's 4 flights, with about 3 hours difference between each departure time? That would cut down on th
50 BMI727 : There are, but widebodies aren't necessarily the solution. But if I were in charge, I would amend rules at congested airports (LGA and DCA notably) a
51 LAXintl : Majority of US airports are not slot control. Matter of fact only a handful are. Most US airports and the ATC system in general has much slack capaci
52 Thegeek : Do what DJ & JQ do. Open the back door, and let people walk across the tarmac back to the terminal. It's a complete mystery to me why QF don't do thi
53 BMI727 : It would encourage airlines to have larger planes and correspondingly fewer flights. The excess slots (from dropped frequencies) would either be unus
54 N62NA : The unfortunate thing is, if the airlines in the USA decided to trim frequencies and use larger planes to keep the number of available seats about the
55 Mayor : Horsefeathers!! DL flew their 747s exclusively domestic from 1970-1977 (except for the PA interchange). The legacies that had 747s, mostly flew them
56 N62NA : Hehehehe... I like that word, "horsefeathers!" Year 2009 minus 30 years = 1979 Year 2009 minus 20 years = 1989 Now, who was flying 747s domestically
57 BMI727 : TWA also flew the 747 on TW1 from STL to HNL. My parents took this flight on their honeymoon in 1989.
58 TheCheese : Most US airports will not allow this because someone would get injured and sue. I guarantee it.
59 Skisandy : Some posters here vigorously defend the system in place now, where US airports are overwhelmed by traffic volume, due to too many scheduled departures
60 BartBus : But with the consolidation going on in the airline industry we may see wide body aircrafts on US domestic routes. But it will take time, there are ver
61 Mayor : Yes, but then you said......... "and that's really been the only way to get on a 747 for the past 20 or 30 years." Which is obviously not true as you
62 MogandoCI : I think the original poster is referring to more extreme cases of wt-2-wt. Of course if u downgrade 6x A320 to 2x 772 it'll result in significant loss
63 N62NA : I agree. Or even later.... I agree. I agree - but unfortunately, there is a severe shortage of widebodies in USA airline's current fleets. Correct!
64 Viscount724 : However, when 707s and DC-8s were the dominant types on Atlantic (and other longhaul) routes, seat pitch in Y class was generally 34 inches, inflight
65 Skisandy : Mayor, you don't have to be a travel agent to dislike the legacy carriers (but it "helps", LOL). MogandoCl and N62NA, you are on my wavelength and see
66 Par13del : I'll take the post as not being a bash against the 737 but the 4 inches of the 320 series makes that much of a difference when boarding and unboardin
67 Avek00 : Not at all true. On account of the greater separation distances required for larger aircraft, at best there would be a marginal decrease in delays at
68 Enilria : The problem is with the airlines to this extent. Clearly customers want to fly at peak times and need to be pushed (with price differences) into off-
69 Par13del : However it still comes down to the facilities, if an airport can only handle say 50 movements per hour that is all it can handle, the airline and its
70 Mir : Kill it off. -Mir
71 Mayor : When the FAA decided that on time stats would be base on within 15 minutes of schedule instead of departure time, which has the effect of putting the
72 Par13del : One of the more important statistics, the aviation fund mandates some minimum requirement on times, somehow they either managed to get the poliicians
73 PPVRA : The cost structure does matter. If a landing fee is a flat $10,000.00 fee at JFK during peak hours, do you think we will see many RJs flying in there
74 Par13del : If the FAA uses landing fees to control movement, but that is something they do not have to do, charges now are based at least on a/c weight / size a
75 LAXintl : The FAA does not do anything with landing fees -- Landing fees are set by individual airports. And no the airports cant just make fees up from thin a
76 Par13del : Thanks for that, was not sure. I mentioned earlier, the airlines and airports certainely were together on this one, really could not figure out why t
77 Thegeek : You are probably correct. But in the nearly 10 years that DJ has been operating, I'd think there would be statistics on how many injuries have occure
78 N62NA : Not only do I see the problem, I experience the problem on almost every flight I take... unfortunately my flying takes me from home in MIA to NYC, PH
79 Mir : No, they're the same. It doesn't start changing until you start involving aircraft of 757 size or larger. 3nm for a 737 behind a 737. 4nm for a 747 b
80 Avek00 : No one, not even the government itself, believes this.
81 Enilria : You seem fixated on 10 or less airports in the whole USA that have slot limitations. I'm telling you that the airlines have done a good job of moving
82 InnocuousFox : I think people underestimate the complexity of scheduling. You can't just say, "this is the optimal arrangement... now go find me a fleet to match." I
83 N62NA : If we're talking about matching capacity of the ATC system to match the capacity of the airports, then yes, I stand by my statement. The problem is,
84 Mayor : I think you misunderstand what I meant. Before the "within 15 minutes" criteria was put in place, when the a/c pushed back, of course, that was depar
85 Par13del : All airports have capacity limits, the upper end would be what they can accomodate at peak times. If the airport max peak is 100 what do you do, make
86 N62NA : Of course. What more obvious illustration of the fact that airlines are scheduling over airport capacity than this "practice?"
87 Mayor : But, the airlines are being forced into this "practice" for the reasons I mentioned.
88 Par13del : I know that they are independent bodies, but in my responses I am being general as I believe that all parties have to work together to make the congr
89 Mayor : Oh, I agree....but when one of those parties, DOT/FAA, changes the rules to their advantage, it seems very difficult to work with them on this proble
90 Mir : But that statement is flawed, because the capacity of an airport is not tied to the capacity of the ATC system (though the capacity of the ATC system
91 Par13del : But it should be, at least in the principle of number of movements, the airport exist to get folks to their destination by air, the primary objective
92 Mir : And yet planes arrive at some airports to find all the gates occupied. -Mir
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...
Why Do Planes Dissect Themselves When They Crash? posted Wed Oct 17 2001 02:36:11 by Lubcha132
UK LCCs (excluding FR&U2) - Why No Planes On Order posted Wed Jul 8 2009 10:03:15 by DocPepz
Southwest: Why No "Illinois One" Or "Chicago One"? posted Wed Nov 28 2007 06:26:50 by FWAERJ
If AA Had The Planes Which Hub Would Benefit? posted Fri Sep 21 2007 00:27:14 by Dfw-man
If It Was In A Movie No-one Would Believe It But.. posted Sun Aug 5 2007 18:26:57 by Maddog888
New Routes Out Of MDT That Would Work Well posted Mon Apr 23 2007 15:30:29 by Buddys747
Two Planes (G/A) Collide In CA And All Survive... posted Sun Feb 4 2007 03:00:08 by Ikramerica
What Happens To Planes When Flights Are Canceled? posted Fri Dec 22 2006 07:55:32 by Fbm3rd
Why Two AF 747-400's In JNB? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 22:41:23 by RootsAir
Official: LX To Get Two A321 And One A320 posted Mon Sep 4 2006 11:04:42 by Matterhorn