Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1456 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
I believe Bombardier's C Series airliners will have around 3,000 nm maximum still air range. If they were to develop a longer range version of the aircraft and achieve ETOP/EROP certification for the PW 1000G engine, what are the commercial prospects for developing point-to-point transatlantic links for 100-150 pax capacity? 3,000 nm is already at the edge of acceptable transatlantic range, pushing range to, say, 3,500 nm may pave the way to the opening of a whole new market in air transport...
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4124 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2383 times:
Transatlantic flights on small aircraft (smaller then 752) have bad costs per kilometer, that's one of the reasons Air Canada stopped flying the A-319 on shorter transatlantic flights to London.
A flight like that needs more galley space and ovens etc. for the hot meal service expected on these flights, IFE (preferably PTV's) installed, possibly relief cockpit crew. The crew has to sleep abroad and their salaries and associated costs are relatively higher then the ones flying local flights. Then there is increased paperwork, turn around time, customs and handling associated with longer flights. All these additional costs have to be funded by relatively few revenue passengers. That's why airlines rather fly 200+ seat jets accross the ocean.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2349 times:
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 1): Transatlantic flights on small aircraft (smaller then 752) have bad costs per kilometer, that's one of the reasons Air Canada stopped flying the A-319 on shorter transatlantic flights to London.
A flight like that needs more galley space and ovens etc. for the hot meal service expected on these flights, IFE (preferably PTV's) installed, possibly relief cockpit crew. The crew has to sleep abroad and their salaries and associated costs are relatively higher then the ones flying local flights. Then there is increased paperwork, turn around time, customs and handling associated with longer flights. All these additional costs have to be funded by relatively few revenue passengers. That's why airlines rather fly 200+ seat jets accross the ocean.
Cost is a major consideration of course. However, one needs to balance that against:
- significantly lower fuel consumption of the E Series's PW 1000G Geared Turbofan engines;
- lower landing fees at the smaller airports which could be opened up; and
- airlines can charge a fare premium for providing point-to-point services, especially when this allows passengers to avoid over-busy hubs like JFK, LHR and CDG; for westbound flights connecting in the US/Canada, you have the added advantage of not having to disembark at your connecting airport for TSA security checks. People will pay money for that convenience.
MPDPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 935 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 2008 times:
Quoting Faro (Reply 2): People will pay money for that convenience.
I think your right to a certain extent. However I don't think there are enough people willing to pay a premium for a coach seat just to fly from a small airport to a small airport. The people who are willing to pay are at the big city centers and have the options of the numerous non-stops offered by the larger aircraft. I think the most narrow-body flying you will see is 757 service to some of the smaller airports from hubs on the opposite side of the Atlantic, and 737/319 service to supplement the existing service on routes where businesses demand more frequency but there isn't enough demand for an additional 757. And also one must remember that when you fly into a hub on one side you are taking up a slot with a small airliner when a larger one could be used.
Now I do think there are a number of things that could be done to make traveling to Europe from small cities to small cities easier. One of the big things I noticed in my travels was the hassle of Customs at the airport you transfer at verse the airport you leave from. DUB and SNN come to mind as simply the easiest flight home ever. Granted this doesn't always work, but not Pre-clearing Customs and transferring in ATL is not as much fun, I can tell you that. But these are things are not easily fixed.
After further research it appears that Canada, Bermuda, Bahamas, Aruba, and Ireland are the only countries with the preclearance feature. Perhaps it could be expanded, but that would require governmental approval.
One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
AirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
Quoting Faro (Reply 2): for westbound flights connecting in the US/Canada, you have the added advantage of not having to disembark at your connecting airport for TSA security checks. People will pay money for that convenience.
Sorry, I'm not with you there or I'm misinterpreting your post. Why would you not have to disembark at a connecting airport?
Brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3274 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 1930 times:
Quoting Faro (Reply 2): for westbound flights connecting in the US/Canada, you have the added advantage of not having to disembark at your connecting airport for TSA security checks.
You most certainly have to disembark to go to Customs and Immigration. You are getting TSA mixed up with CBP/CBSA. You are right, if you fly into Canada you will not have to deal with the TSA since it is American and only is at American airports.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
Quoting Brilondon (Reply 5): Quoting Faro (Reply 2):
for westbound flights connecting in the US/Canada, you have the added advantage of not having to disembark at your connecting airport for TSA security checks.
You most certainly have to disembark to go to Customs and Immigration. You are getting TSA mixed up with CBP/CBSA. You are right, if you fly into Canada you will not have to deal with the TSA since it is American and only is at American airports.
The wording isn't clear, but I think Faro's reply was intended to mean that a nonstop flight on a smaller aircraft does have the advantage of avoiding the security and other hassles of making a connection.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 1844 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6): Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 1):
that's one of the reasons Air Canada stopped flying the A-319 on shorter transatlantic flights to London.
Air Canada has one trans-Atlantic A319 route, and the flight was barely much longer than Miami-Las Vegas.
I think you mean "had", but their briefly-operated A319 route YYT (St. John's, Newfoundland) - LHR route a couple of years ago is closer to MIA-LAX (23 nm shorter). AC has several other current nonstop A319 routes longer than YYT-LHR.
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 1821 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 7): The wording isn't clear, but I think Faro's reply was intended to mean that a nonstop flight on a smaller aircraft does have the advantage of avoiding the security and other hassles of making a connection.
Exactly, thanx for the clarification Viscount. If you go point-to-point, you have nil connections.
ItalianFlyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 951 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 1747 times:
Hmmm...first of all, my friends and i have 'joked' about TATL CRJ service (United to HAM, operated by Mesa lol) and I see your point...it is do-able in theory.
But in addition to the previously mentioned CASM/K issue, one must factor just what premium the marketplace will sustain for the sake of convenience and is it profitable. As air transportation is more of a commodity, what kind of pricing premium can an airline place on point2point traffic? In the domestic US/Canadian market experience the answer to that question is 'not much'...so expanding that failed model to Europe or North Africa would be a tough sell.
Second, while I do agree that there are niche markets tied to Euro-North American business centers (Bayer, Daimler-Benz, Glaxo, Ford, etc), most of that high yield traffic is already served by corporate shuttles and/or bulk ticketing agreements.
Sponsor Message: 
From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1456 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4124 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 935 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3274 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31155 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
