Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows  
User currently offlinealexinwa From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1155 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10550 times:

Now don't attack me right off the bat..............

So here is a link to what LAX looked like in 1985. Notice all the Widebody flights?

http://www.departedflights.com/LAX85intro.html

My question is..................with the price of oil being at least 25% higher or more than 1985, why are airlines not going back to this type of sch? I understand the "business traveller" won't like it. How many are flying first class and paying full fare? Besides, we don't even have "business class" in the US domestic.

I just wonder if 14 narrow body flights between point A and B is better than 7 widebody flights? Less cost on fuel with the widebody, a little less on staff, and a whole lot less stress on air traffic.

I don't have the numbers but, AS flies two daily 738 to HNL from SEA. HA does it once on a 763. Which is cheaper? And Im talking just this segmet. Not the overall airlines network!!!

Just curious!!!!


You mad Bro???
69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10514 times:

Frequency and flexibility. Use your AS example: some people want to return from HNL in the morning, some in the afternoon and others in the evening. And during some spring & fall months when demand to HNL is low, those widebodies become a tremendous liability -- which is critical in a low-margin industry, as one bad month can wipe out eleven months of gains.

You can apply frequency & flexibility to many other scenarios: a business traveler not patient to wait several hours for the next available flight, low demand during the mid-week, etc. (Notice how it's much more common today for airlines to slash mid-week frequency than it was in the past. CO created a science out of it during its turnaround).

Other factors, too, but those are the primary.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineHiFlyerAS From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1016 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10433 times:

I think it's a great question. Again, using AS as an example, they'll run 18 r/t flights a day in the summer SEA-ANC. Seems silly to have near-hourly departures on a three hour flight when they could acquire some a/c with increased capacity and run half the number of flights. But then you need to decide where to allocate those a/c in the 'off-season'. Yes, you could use them West Coast-Hawaii in the winter but, as Compensate said, people like having options and frequency...particularly business travelers that might be able jump on an earlier flight home.

I do think that most airlines eventually reach a tipping-point where adding wide-bodies makes financial sense. In the case above, the two highest-paid people on every one of those 18 flights are sitting in the flight deck. Would you rather pay 9 pilots or 18 that day at $$$ per flight? I think the lower CASM of a wide-body eventually makes the financial case for adding bigger a/c to the fleet, outweighing the simplicity of an all narrow-body or single-type fleet. I think AS is getting close to that point.



Next trip...DL RJ SEA-LAX/AM LAX-MEX Dec 23
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10404 times:

Competition is another item to be looked at, when pax have no other or limited options, you can run flights with your type equipment based on schedules that work for your fleet deployment, versus what the market place / customers would like.

User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10286 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 3):
Competition is another item to be looked at, when pax have no other or limited options, you can run flights with your type equipment based on schedules that work for your fleet deployment, versus what the market place / customers would like.

Do you really believe the market/customers really prefer widebody service over narrowbodies in higher frequency?

The OP brought up SEA-HNL to support the assertion that a single widebody service would be better than multiple narrowbodies, but really it supports the opposite.

(1) Most passengers prefer to have flexible departure times. Take HNL-SEA: some people prefer an early afternoon departure (perhaps they want to leave after their hotel check-out time, or maybe they want to get home that night) while others desire to take the redeye.

(2) The airline industry operates on thin margins. When demand wanes for AS's HNL/SEA (some spring, fall months; midweek; etc.), it can easily cut a flight. As I previously mentioned, one really bad month with a widebody can easily wipe out 11 good months.

(3) The narrowbodies provide flexibility for AS. Suppose a hurricane strikes Oahu, the economy takes, etc. Those widebodies would be a very, very large liability for the airline since it has virtually no other routes to deploy them on.

---

Sorry, folks, but there's absolutely no conspiracy as to why airlines have ceased domestic widebody service. If there was truly a marker for the service, it'd exist.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8978 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 10215 times:

There is a lot of truth to what has been said above, but there is also another side that, if allowed to exist, would "temper" the desire for frequency and the resulting traffic woes. This "other side" is the airport - right now, airports are basically forced to run non-profit operations under strict economic regulations of their fees.

Lift these, and airports will likely start charging based on peak hour demand, which should tame airline's customers desire for frequency. Basically, they may still want that frequency, but not at that price.

This would require privatization of the airports and liberalization of the price/fee controls. So, plenty of politics involved, unfortunately.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 10182 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
Lift these, and airports will likely start charging based on peak hour demand, which should tame airline's customers desire for frequency. Basically, they may still want that frequency, but not at that price.

Realistically, how many airports would be able to change for peak hour demand? For example, if ATL tried it, don't you think DL would threaten to move traffic via its other hubs? Same thing for UA (IAH, etc.) and AA (DFW, etc.) at ORD. If DEN tried it, F9 and WN would threaten to slash flights.

NYC may be the only market that could get away with such tactics. But it won't be enough to justify the cost of oddles of domestic widebodies; instead, airlines would just charge more for those flights to cover those fees and reluctant passengers could travel at other times.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8978 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 10065 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 6):
Realistically, how many airports would be able to change for peak hour demand? For example, if ATL tried it, don't you think DL would threaten to move traffic via its other hubs? Same thing for UA (IAH, etc.) and AA (DFW, etc.) at ORD. If DEN tried it, F9 and WN would threaten to slash flights.

Yes, DL would threaten to leave ATL. Unless you sold the airport to them and let DL decide how to handle it. . . or maybe half the airport, they probably don't need/want the whole thing and we can get some better competition going if we sell the other half to someone else. Similar things can be looked into for places like IAH, HOU, DFW, LUV, etc.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 6):
NYC may be the only market that could get away with such tactics. But it won't be enough to justify the cost of oddles of domestic widebodies; instead, airlines would just charge more for those flights to cover those fees and reluctant passengers could travel at other times.

EWR, JFK, LGA, LAX, ORD, MDW and MIA probably could while keeping every other airport under the current system. And this would have a significant impact on airlines. Just putting NYC and LAX on a peak hour demand schedule would probably have significant positive effects on delays across the country.

It is, however, a significant change that would give the airlines/industry a little extra turbulence until they adjust. On the positive side, timing isn't so bad. . DL/AA/UA are all looking at refreshing their fleets. Maybe Boeing would bring back the 787-3. . .wishful thinking perhaps, who knows. . .



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinerogercamel From Singapore, joined Feb 2012, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9746 times:

Quoting alexinwa (Thread starter):
I just wonder if 14 narrow body flights between point A and B is better than 7 widebody flights? Less cost on fuel with the widebody, a little less on staff, and a whole lot less stress on air traffic.

The 7 widebodies would probably be cheaper for that particular route - but you also need to fill the planes when they are not working on that route. Airlines with mixed fleets will look to make maximise the overall network profit, perhaps rather than maximise the profit of a few routes while plunging other routes into the red.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 1):
Frequency and flexibility

  

When I travel (on business for sure) I always look for high frequencies - two reasons - more likely to have a flight at the time that I want and if a flight gets cancelled I have to wait less long to get on the next flight.


User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2980 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9577 times:

Competition is a big factor in the reduction in widebody traffic, particularly in domestic US and intra-EU.
For example, LAX-NYC used to be the territory of AA, UA & CO. Both ran a large number of widebodies between these cities.
Now we have in addition B6, VX, & DL being key players on this route. The result is mostly narrowbodies with six carriers fighting it out.

Another factor is slots at a particular airport.
For example, if Tokyo Haneda (HND) had plenty of slots and operated like on the style of US, we would most likely have many LCCs fighting on key routes such as HND-FUK (Fukuoka), ITM (Osaka Kitami) & CTS (Sapporo Chitose) which are some of the busiest air routes in the world. Then we would most likely see narrowbodies or smaller widebodies. Currently, the legacies NH & JL operate mostly 777s on these routes while the newcombers like Skymark & Starflyer fly 738 & A320s, respectively on the slots they receive.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9532 times:

Quoting alexinwa (Thread starter):
How many are flying first class and paying full fare?

Most are paying full fare.

Quoting alexinwa (Thread starter):
I just wonder if 14 narrow body flights between point A and B is better than 7 widebody flights? Less cost on fuel with the widebody, a little less on staff, and a whole lot less stress on air traffic.

Less stress on the planet as well. I think the value of flights every 30 minutes is nearly nothing compared to widebodies on the hour.


However, the other points are well made. You have to operate the network you can.


NS


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9322 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):
Less stress on the planet as well. I think the value of flights every 30 minutes is nearly nothing compared to widebodies on the hour.

Some how I think when folks think of wide bodies they are thinking of one every 2 to 3 hours versus your 30mins and 1 hour.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
Lift these, and airports will likely start charging based on peak hour demand, which should tame airline's customers desire for frequency. Basically, they may still want that frequency, but not at that price.

Whether by reduced competition from other airlines or airports restricting competiton by charging / raising prices which will ultimately drive some players away from your market place, it all comes down to restricting the pax choice by allowing the surviving provider of service more power to use equipment and set schedules on their terms. If one 777 could take all the traffic of several RJ's and the airline was assured that those pax would all have to wait for that 777 and not go elsewhere they would do so in a shot. Its one of the reasons why international flights are so profitable, the level of competition on the routes is much lower, even when you look at TATL into LHR for example, if the slots were available and there were no restrictions, how many 737's, A32XX would be on the route by LCC's even with the high number of flight hours involved, its not much different from transcon in the USA.
On an operational basis, when one carrier has multiple frequencies with less competition, consolidation of flights with lower loads on a daily basis is far more frequent than when more carrier choices are available, its just basic operational efficiency, why send and a/c on a return when both sides can be consolidated on the next flight in 30mins?


Ultimately finding the proper mix between pax needs and provider needs is a fine line, older folks still dream of the good old days of exclusivity, not within a particular airline but within the entire industry.


User currently offlineMark2fly1034 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 138 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8619 times:

I guess you could also look at this way you need to make sure that you have an aircraft to do the flight which is not a problem. If you cancel a widebody vs a narrow how many possible wides would you have sitting around on the ramp that could be used and if there is none now they have to try and rebook all 200 some odd people. If you cancel a narrow body you are more likely to have one sitting around and if not it might only be 100 people you have to rebook. I do understand they question I go to Riddle and we were talking about it they other day. Why could DL not fly all 757s down to DAB instead of all MD-88/90s if they were to take 1 flight away and fly all 757s they could still have they same number of seats buy I guess it all goes back to where are they going to get all the 757s. I guess it all has to go back on time and making sure you can get the plane filled up.

Question. I have been doing LAX-ATL a lot and usually I bring back the 4pm from LAX and it is a 737 which would be completely empty, but now they are flying a 757 and it appears to be going out full ever day it is flown. Is this a seasonal thing?


User currently offlinerichiemo From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8557 times:

All this said, how I long for the days of DC10s and L1011s dotting across the North American landscape. I always say, UA and DAL use a lot of 767s on flights within US, but I don't consider a 767 in the same light as I did a DC10, L1011 etc.

User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 472 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7829 times:

An airline has more pricing flexibility with two flights instead of one. With one widebody, the airline will have to keep its lower priced seats longer because they are more per flight. With two narrowbodiew, the cheap seats are sold faster.

What I am not sure about is fuel consumption. Do two A320's consume more or less fuel than a A330-200?


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7743 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7721 times:

If Airline A is today operating an hourly service using single-aisle aircraft but decided tomorrow to offer a two-hourly service operating twin-aisle aircraft would not Airline B step in at the vacated times with single aisle aircraft and leave Aitline A's twin-aisle aircraft operating less than half full?

User currently offlineDTWLAX From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7328 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):
How many are flying first class and paying full fare?

Most are paying full fare.

How can you say this? My guess is very little percentage paying full fare and a lot of them are upgrades.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):
Less stress on the planet as well. I think the value of flights every 30 minutes is nearly nothing compared to widebodies on the hour.

I am trying to understand what you mean by that statement.


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4595 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7153 times:

Quoting alexinwa (Thread starter):
My question is..................with the price of oil being at least 25% higher or more than 1985, why are airlines not going back to this type of sch? I understand the "business traveller" won't like it. How many are flying first class and paying full fare? Besides, we don't even have "business class" in the US domestic.

A big problem is that the airlines in the USA don't have the widebodies to do this, even if they wanted. And, with the huge AA order for 737/A32x that was recently placed, it seems like it will be decades before airlines in the USA would even be able to make such a change to less frequency / larger aircraft.

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 2):
I do think that most airlines eventually reach a tipping-point where adding wide-bodies makes financial sense.

Or, in the case of AS, it doesn't even have to be a widebody. For them, adding more 739s might make sense. We've seen WN add higher capacity aircraft (the 738) in a move towards larger capacity aircraft.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
Lift these, and airports will likely start charging based on peak hour demand, which should tame airline's customers desire for frequency. Basically, they may still want that frequency, but not at that price.

A very good point.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):
Less stress on the planet as well. I think the value of flights every 30 minutes is nearly nothing compared to widebodies on the hour.

I view this every 30 minutes / every 60 minutes frequency trap we find ourselves in as absurd. There's so much congestion at the moment that the airlines have basically added at least 30 minutes to the overall trip time to account for the time you wait in line for takeoff. Going to an every 60 to 90 minutes model on larger aircraft would make much more sense - and for the complaining business traveller who wants his/her every 30 to 60 minutes frequency, you just explain that you actually save the 30 minutes in that you don't have to be #30 for takeoff anymore.


User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6746 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 17):
A big problem is that the airlines in the USA don't have the widebodies to do this, even if they wanted.

It's not a problem. If airlines wanted (felt a need) to operate domestic widebodies, they would.

--In recent years, there's been a tremendous lag in UA's domestic 763 & 777 fleet, with several aircraft regularly sitting idle and others operating just two turns per day. No wonder the aircraft are being re-configured for deployment on intercontinental routes.

--DL's parked several able 763 and divested others.

--AA retired a large, relatively young fleet of AB6.

And if airlines felt the need to acquire more of such aircraft, they'd be able to readily acquire some. While you may feel high frequency is absurd, the general population of FF disagrees. In the end, people who vote with their wallet reign over people who think widebodies are cool  Wink.

[Edited 2012-04-28 11:08:10]


Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4595 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6495 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 18):
It's not a problem. If airlines wanted (felt a need) to operate domestic widebodies, they would.

It's a problem in that if they wanted to cut frequency and substitute larger aircraft to offer the same capacity, they don't have the ability to do so right now.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 18):
While you may feel high frequency is absurd, the general population of FF disagrees.

You don't have anything to back that up. And the fact that most people view flying in the USA today as an ordeal to be endured - and delays figure prominently in that - is symptomatic of the problems frequency is causing.


User currently offlineNutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 510 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6297 times:

I liked the AS example on the SEA-ANC run with 15-18 departures daily. There are a number of reasons for this including cargo, codeshare activity, and a strong O and D base to work with in SEA. The flight timings allow cargo customers to drop off their high priority, high revenue shipments at almost any point of the day in SEA with the knowledge that it will be in ANC within 5-6 hours regardless of what time you dropped it off.....cargo is a big business for AS and what space isn't taken by bags on the ANC flights will be filled with high-dollar cargo (often perishable).

Because the O and D is so strong in SEA for this market, AS does not need to time the ANC departures to match its departure and arrival banks.....they can still fill an airplane. I have seen the number of ANC departures drop to as low as 15 with a high of 19. The increased flying is generally focused on late spring and summer travel for tourist activity and the Alaska cruise ship season. There are however, multiple peak travel periods for this routing including the fishing season which in itself has multiple peaks (Alaska King crab, Salmon etc) and the end of the summer is always extremely busy cargo-wise as shipments of winter provisions are sent north in preparation for the long cold winter. The 15-19 departures are a combination of PAX aircraft and combi ops with only two of them being combi's. These departures do not count the two dedicated 734 freighter runs that occur daily between SEA and ANC as well.

With all that said, the dynamic of some markets simply supports higher flight frequency over lower frequency/ higher capacity.



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 447 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6127 times:

Some airlines can afford to do a little of both. Take DL, for example, on the ATL-LAX route. On a day in late May, they have 10 flights operating that route, 5 narrowbodies and 5 widebodies. This gives them both frequency and capacity on that route during peak times, especially because one of the widebodies is a 77L!

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6001 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 15):
If Airline A is today operating an hourly service using single-aisle aircraft but decided tomorrow to offer a two-hourly service operating twin-aisle aircraft would not Airline B step in at the vacated times with single aisle aircraft and leave Aitline A's twin-aisle aircraft operating less than half full?

Yes, that's the competiton aspect of the situation.
However, there are some who hope that the elimination of competion by consolidation which in some areas has led to increased loads and higher prices will also lead to less RJ's and ;arger a/c, unfortunately, the scope issue which led to all the regionals still remains, so not much is changing.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8978 posts, RR: 39
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5618 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 11):

Consolidating frequencies won't have an impact on competition.

As for price, it won't necessarily cost more from a passenger perspective. If, say, JFK decides to charge a whopping $10,000 to land there at peak hour, and your airline uses a 777 it will cost much less per seat than had it used a 737.

Of course, seats don't pay for anything, so if you fly in a half empty 772 and a full 73G the price per person will be about the same. So you've got a system that incentivizes larger aircraft and high loads.

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
Quoting VV701 (Reply 15):
If Airline A is today operating an hourly service using single-aisle aircraft but decided tomorrow to offer a two-hourly service operating twin-aisle aircraft would not Airline B step in at the vacated times with single aisle aircraft and leave Aitline A's twin-aisle aircraft operating less than half full?

Yes, that's the competiton aspect of the situation.

That logic applies to the current system. In fact, it's exactly what's out of control with the current system.

[Edited 2012-04-28 14:21:29]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4875 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 19):

You don't have anything to back that up. And the fact that most people view flying in the USA today as an ordeal to be endured - and delays figure prominently in that - is symptomatic of the problems frequency is causing.

Do you seriously beleive there's a collated conspiracy occuring within the USA domestic market to deprive passengers of domestic widebodies? Do you not think airlines have spent millions on market research that's concluded frequent passengers place their strongest emphesis on scheduling? Do you think DL, UA, AA, etc. have ditched (most of) their domestic widebodies just to tick passengers off?

I've spent my entire adult life in this industry, in various capacities. I know all-to-well that a business traveler in Chicago who's finished his meeting several hours early and wants to get home ASAP cares only about getting on the next available flight, and not whether it's a shiny new Boeing 787 or an aging McDonnell Douglas MD-80.

Shall we contact Chris Hanson and ask him to do a story on this conspiracy?

Sorry, but cool planes aren't enough of a selling point to coveted travelers.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4595 posts, RR: 7
Reply 25, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4889 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 24):
Do you seriously beleive there's a collated conspiracy occuring within the USA domestic market to deprive passengers of domestic widebodies? Do you not think airlines have spent millions on market research that's concluded frequent passengers place their strongest emphesis on scheduling? Do you think DL, UA, AA, etc. have ditched (most of) their domestic widebodies just to tick passengers off?

I've spent my entire adult life in this industry, in various capacities. I know all-to-well that a business traveler in Chicago who's finished his meeting several hours early and wants to get home ASAP cares only about getting on the next available flight, and not whether it's a shiny new Boeing 787 or an aging McDonnell Douglas MD-80.

Shall we contact Chris Hanson and ask him to do a story on this conspiracy?

Sorry, but cool planes aren't enough of a selling point to coveted travelers.

I think you're reading way too much into what I wrote. Conspiracy? Really?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 26, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4765 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 24):
Do you seriously beleive there's a collated conspiracy occuring within the USA domestic market to deprive passengers of domestic widebodies?

I do believe that in many airlines it has become a self fulfilling prophecy. Not WB vs NB but the frequency justification driving the decisions leading to NB and higher costs due to higher inefficiencies.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 24):
I've spent my entire adult life in this industry, in various capacities. I know all-to-well that a business traveler in Chicago who's finished his meeting several hours early and wants to get home ASAP cares only about getting on the next available flight, and not whether it's a shiny new Boeing 787 or an aging McDonnell Douglas MD-80.

And I know plenty of times where people have rushed to make the 777 flight instead of the renamed DC-9 flight half an hour later. But then I'm not in the industry. I'm just one of the business travelers who together with my colleagues make those selections.

I had a year when I was flying Miami - DR almost every week. Even if I requested the 757 flight I got booked on the A300 because the larger plane is so much better.


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5566 posts, RR: 12
Reply 27, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 4824 times:

Quoting alexinwa (Thread starter):



Quoting thread starter: I'll even take narrowbodies over all the RJ's. The nasty congested airports of the NYC area and BOS would do better if instead of all the RJ flights, they instead combined flights onto narrow body birds. And I for one would love to see a return to jumbos. I wish we WN/FL would get into the wide body business especially for our burgeoning Trans Con and International expansion.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days ago) and read 4743 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 26):
And I know plenty of times where people have rushed to make the 777 flight instead of the renamed DC-9 flight half an hour later. But then I'm not in the industry. I'm just one of the business travelers who together with my colleagues make those selections.

Maybe they're rushing to make the flight because they want to get home a half hour earlier.

I'm not in disagreement that the general flying population ultimiately prefers widebodies. But it's clear that frequency and price ultimiately reign. Do I think hourly, or less than hourly, service is silly? Absolultely. But too often I hear a grown man throw a tantrum 'what do you mean the next flight's not for 90-minutes ... do you know how much I bill my clients for 90-minutes."

UA best illustrates this topic. For the last several years it's had plenty of slack within its domestic widebody fleet, with multiple aircraft frequently idle and several others in the air for only two turns per day. With the expedited retirment, and no replacement, of its 737 fleet, UA could've used some additional mainline life during peak times. But did UA ever make any effort to fully use its widebody fleet/cut frequency (thus freeing up some narrowbodies)?

The assertion that legacy carriers don't operate domestic widebodies because they lack the aircraft is lunacy when UA, DL and AA have divested such capable aircraft in recent years. Network planners have oodles and oddles of data at their disposal; they're certainly not more ignorant than the a.net population. Certainly in this low-margin industry if there was a profitable, premium market for widebody service than it'd exist. Status quo, it does not. Maybe one day that will change.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4701 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 4):
Do you really believe the market/customers really prefer widebody service over narrowbodies in higher frequency?

DJ do. They got some A332s to operate SYD-PER (4.5-5 hours). Mind you, there is significant cargo demand on this route too. QF have done the exact opposite on SYD-AKL which also has significant cargo demand, but that has a union busting component as narrow bodies can be crewed out of AKL via Jetconnect.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 4):
Sorry, folks, but there's absolutely no conspiracy as to why airlines have ceased domestic widebody service. If there was truly a marker for the service, it'd exist.

I think that your shear number of airlines a few years back militated against wide bodies on domestic service. No airline could consolidate enough market share on enough routes. It's different in Australia. There is even a 767 on MEL-CBR sometimes.

Of course, airport fees and rules are a factor and if the Feds wanted to reduce congestion they would structure the fees to promote such flights.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 30, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4634 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 28):
Maybe they're rushing to make the flight because they want to get home a half hour earlier.

All about the seats. International configuration instead of domestic.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 28):
But it's clear that frequency and price ultimiately reign.

No doubt they are important. But I also think frequency has been overdone to the point it often has the reverse effect. Not enough seats at peak time so you need to take a flight or two later. I also think many daytime flights should be cancelled. They are either going out with very light loads or are discounted to such a degree they have poor profitability. On top of that many of those customers would have paid higher rates to fly at peak time if seats were available.

Much of this no doubt because they make the per theory of constraints classical mistake of thinking that you must run your expensive machines as many hours as possible.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 28):
But too often I hear a grown man throw a tantrum 'what do you mean the next flight's not for 90-minutes ... do you know how much I bill my clients for 90-minutes."

No doubt because another 90 minutes at the terminal is only slightly better than 90 minutes of water boarding  

Seriously, to many traveling is a high stress situation from the moment they leave for the airport until they walk out at the destination. When something goes wrong it becomes a fight with the airline and finding a solution becomes secondary.

A lot of it is because terms are very much in favor of the airline. No matter what goes wrong passengers end up paying for it. As unproductive as it is, screaming and bitching is the only vent available and too many passengers use it at poor airline representatives who have no more influence on the situation than the screaming passenger.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 31, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4562 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 11):
Some how I think when folks think of wide bodies they are thinking of one every 2 to 3 hours versus your 30mins and 1 hour.

Just doesn't work unless you control the market entirely on that route.

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 16):
How can you say this? My guess is very little percentage paying full fare and a lot of them are upgrades.

I'm not talking about full fare first so much as full fare coach. In the US, first is practically coach

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 16):
I am trying to understand what you mean by that statement.

Widebodies less often are FAR more environmentally friendly than narrowbodies, and , as a frequent business traveler I do not see the value of narrowbody flights every 30 minutes when widebodies every hour will do.

NS


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

I understand that widebodies are more thirsty on a per seat basis. Only if enough freight is able to be carried could wide bodies be more "environmental".

Widebodies are cheaper due to saving labour - particularly flight crew. I imagine maintenance has a saving too.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4502 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32):
I understand that widebodies are more thirsty on a per seat basis. Only if enough freight is able to be carried could wide bodies be more "environmental".

Widebodies are cheaper due to saving labour - particularly flight crew. I imagine maintenance has a saving too.

That's not true. At the same technological level, larger aircraft are almost always more efficient on a per-seat basis as smaller aircraft designed for the same mission. Yes, a widebody clearly has more form drag associated with the cross section of the fuselage, but will be substantially shorter, and thus have less wetted area and skin friction than a narrowbody with the same number of seats. Obviously assuming sane aircraft lengths - a 10-across, 100 passenger widebody would be silly and inefficient. At appropriate lengths, a widebody is much more structurally efficient as well.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4398 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 33):
larger aircraft are almost always more efficient on a per-seat basi

Define "efficient". Costs are composed of more than just fuel, and wide body aircraft are heavier per seat so have to compensate. I don't doubt that they do to some degree.

A380 carries 324kg per 1-class seat
A320 carries 237kg per 1-class seat

That difference is not insignificant, and mostly due to the longer range requirements for wide bodies.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4344 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 34):
Define "efficient". Costs are composed of more than just fuel, and wide body aircraft are heavier per seat so have to compensate. I don't doubt that they do to some degree.

A380 carries 324kg per 1-class seat
A320 carries 237kg per 1-class seat

That difference is not insignificant, and mostly due to the longer range requirements for wide bodies.


As I said "At the same technological level, larger aircraft are almost always more efficient on a per-seat basis as smaller aircraft designed for the same mission."

The A380 is much heavier per seat than an A320 because it's designed to fly 7500nm missions, and the A320 2500nm missions. The A380 is designed to carry some 900lbs of fuel per passenger, the A320 some 300lbs. So the A380 is built to haul approximately 1100lbs off the ground for each passenger on board, vs. 500lbs for the A320. And it does that by being only 35% heavier per-seat.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4323 times:

Sorry, missed that qualification.

It's ridiculous though. The fact is that wide bodies are designed for longer range than narrow bodies!


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4295 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 31):
as a frequent business traveler I do not see the value of narrowbody flights every 30 minutes when widebodies every hour will do.

How much more are you prepared to pay to have that extra frequency? It doesn't come free.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32):
I understand that widebodies are more thirsty on a per seat basis. Only if enough freight is able to be carried could wide bodies be more "environmental".

Depends on mission but WB are inherently more efficient. If a WB is designed for short similar length mission even more so.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32):
Widebodies are cheaper due to saving labour - particularly flight crew. I imagine maintenance has a saving too.

There is almost no difference since you must have one cabin crew per every x seats. In most countries x is 50. The larger plane have a small advantage as pilots are "shared" over more passengers.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4256 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):
There is almost no difference since you must have one cabin crew per every x seats. In most countries x is 50. The larger plane have a small advantage as pilots are "shared" over more passengers.

I'm sure the pilots still suck up more money than cabin crew on a narrow body.

Labour cost is also not just crew. There's also ground handling and maintenance which are not proportional to passengers.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4142 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 38):
I'm sure the pilots still suck up more money than cabin crew on a narrow body.

They tend to better paid. But pilots on larger planes tend to be better paid too.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 38):
Labour cost is also not just crew. There's also ground handling and maintenance which are not proportional to passengers.

The statement was specifically about flight crew.

I fully agree that in most cases the larger plane will come out with lower cost per passenger if loads are proprietorially same.

It is also my opinion that in most cases a limited number of frequencies at peak times will provide better profit margin than many frequencies throughout the day. I venture many of the multiple frequencies have problems covering cost because of discounting and still low load factor. This isn't Walmart or McD with their fixed prices.


User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 39):
It is also my opinion that in most cases a limited number of frequencies at peak times will provide better profit margin than many frequencies throughout the day. I venture many of the multiple frequencies have problems covering cost because of discounting and still low load factor. This isn't Walmart or McD with their fixed prices.

Grocery stores have long held high product margins -- which are eaten by shrinkage and overhead. Larger grocery stores in less frequency would equate into big profit centers, with shoppers potentially benefiting from an expanded selection and full-service experience. Yet this model's rarely employed. Why? Because American consumers are reluctant to grocery shop more than several minutes from their home. Much like the airline industry, the grocery industry has seen oddles of bankrupcies, closures and consolidations the past 20 years.

As long as the business community demands high-frequency, that's the model the airline industry will continue to employ.

[Edited 2012-04-29 10:12:47]


Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 41, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3973 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 40):
Grocery stores have long held high product margins -- which are eaten by shrinkage and overhead. Larger grocery stores in less frequency would equate into big profit centers, with shoppers potentially benefiting from an expanded selection and full-service experience. Yet this model's rarely employed.

I'm sorry, that is exactly the Walmart/Costco/Sam's/Target/Winco model...and it's flourishing. The big grocery stores are eating the small local stores' lunch.

Tom.


User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3877 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):

I'm sorry, that is exactly the Walmart/Costco/Sam's/Target/Winco model...and it's flourishing. The big grocery stores are eating the small local stores' lunch.

It is (flourisng)? Sam's and Costco appeal to a niche market and most Targets carry a limited selection of non-perishables. And despite Walmart's size -- the amount of consumers & revenues each Super store attracts -- your typcial neighboorhood grocery store has a wider variety of fresh (produce, meat, seafood, bakery etc.) selections, often of higher quality. That itself is a strong indication of the type of shopper Walmart attracts.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 43, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3793 times:

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 40):
Grocery stores have long held high product margins -- which are eaten by shrinkage and overhead.

I.e. not high margins. Many make as much money on cash flow as they do on products. The beauty of getting paid much faster than you pay your suppliers.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 40):
Yet this model's rarely employed. Why? Because American consumers are reluctant to grocery shop more than several minutes from their home.

It is very much employed. The small mom and pop stores that used to exist in every block are largely gone. The supermarkets who replaced them are losing sales to the mega stores. Peoples shopping are consolidating to fewer but larger stores. It isn't just groceries. It is pretty much all shopping.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 40):
As long as the business community demands high-frequency, that's the model the airline industry will continue to employ.

That is the mantra being repeated all the times. But the question is if it is real?

I'm not suggesting there is no interest in frequency. I'm suggesting it often has been overdone and actually is counter product to both airlines and passengers. Airlines because costs are much higher than they get paid for and passengers because they need to select second choices as there isn't enough capacity at peak times.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3623 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 39):
It is also my opinion that in most cases a limited number of frequencies at peak times will provide better profit margin

Say what? So abandon yield management principles then? You get less flights on major routes on weekends here because there is less demand, I don't doubt it's the same in the US.

What you are saying sounds like what brought the original Compass Airlines down over here.

Quoting cmf (Reply 43):
passengers because they need to select second choices as there isn't enough capacity at peak times.

Not in my experience. A completely sold out flight is comparatively rare here. You can generally get on almost any flight if you are prepared to pay full fare, even at the last minute. And if you can't, there is one at a near enough time you can get on. Obviously evening flights the day before Good Friday will often sell out though.


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2813 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

Quoting panais (Reply 14):
An airline has more pricing flexibility with two flights instead of one. With one widebody, the airline will have to keep its lower priced seats longer because they are more per flight. With two narrowbodiew, the cheap seats are sold faster.

I don't believe the cheap seats would be sold out much faster with two narrowbody aircraft versus one widebody. It's more likely that they will have roughly the same number of lower priced seats, but they will be divided between the two flights. For the bargain hunters that suck up most of those seats schedule isn't very important. If flight A is full but flight B has the cheap seats available they simply choose B. Same number of seats, but the bargain hunters are forced to one flight or the other based on availability of each flight.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 46, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3548 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 44):
Say what? So abandon yield management principles then?

Not at all. Better optimization as I am not limited by equipment in place.

How often do you find the same price on all flights? By moving passengers from the lower priced frequencies to the higher you get more revenue and better cost.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 44):
Not in my experience. A completely sold out flight is comparatively rare here.

You're fortunate. But it doesn't change that you move passengers to higher priced frequencies.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 47, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3299 times:

Quoting alexinwa (Thread starter):
I don't have the numbers but, AS flies two daily 738 to HNL from SEA. HA does it once on a 763. Which is cheaper?

The 738's probably.

Which means nothing because a widebody as new as the 738 against a narrowbody as old as the 763 would be even much more cheaper (both with the same range capability).

Quoting N62NA (Reply 17):
A big problem is that the airlines in the USA don't have the widebodies to do this, even if they wanted.

Correct, there are no short range widebodies currently offered. Of course this gives us a strong hint how the market has looked at this question in the last years. And yet, whether this will apply to the future is an open question. Boeing repeatedly tested the market for a shortrange widebody twin in the last ten years.

On the other hand there was a time, when a short range widebody was a fresh design:
At the time, when the A300 was introduced, it offered 50% and more efficiency gains compared to the best narrowbody.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32):
I understand that widebodies are more thirsty on a per seat basis.

Wrong.

Rwessel is of course absolutely correct with the next point:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 33):
At the same technological level, larger aircraft are almost always more efficient on a per-seat basis as smaller aircraft designed for the same mission.

  

Quoting rwessel (Reply 33):
Yes, a widebody clearly has more form drag associated with the cross section of the fuselage

This is true, but in an effort to underline your position, we still can say, that for 1m fuselage length:

- a widebody cross section has more floor space = more seats
- a widebody cross section has more cargo volume
- a widebody cross section has less drag per unit of payload
- a widebody cross section has less weight per unit of payload
- a widebody cross section has the higher structural efficiency

Quoting thegeek (Reply 34):
Define "efficient". Costs are composed of more than just fuel, and wide body aircraft are heavier per seat so have to compensate.

Wrong.
A wide body design that would have the same range as a narrowbody would weigth less per seat. The respone from Rwessel is again absoluetly correct:
Quoting rwessel (Reply 35):
The A380 is much heavier per seat than an A320 because it's designed to fly 7500nm missions, and the A320 2500nm missions. The A380 is designed to carry some 900lbs of fuel per passenger, the A320 some 300lbs. So the A380 is built to haul approximately 1100lbs off the ground for each passenger on board, vs. 500lbs for the A320. And it does that by being only 35% heavier per-seat.

____

Quoting thegeek (Reply 36):
It's ridiculous though. The fact is that wide bodies are designed for longer range than narrow bodies!

This is not true per se. There were widebodies that were not designed for longer ranges. Today however it is true. But again, there is no guarantee that things will not change again.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 48, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 47):
This is not true per se. There were widebodies that were not designed for longer ranges. Today however it is true. But again, there is no guarantee that things will not change again.

Well Boeing tried it with the 787 on the cheap, basically design a long range wide body then try to shrink it to a short range version, biggest problem they had was they took out too much range which killed interest from clients other than Japan, there are / were a number of A300's in service for which that a/c would have been a good replacement.
Now will either OEM specifically design a wide body with limited range but wide body capacity, that remains to be seen, I think the 787-3 was a good option to look at if the designers at Boeing had not screwed the pooch by being too cheap.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 49, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

The current widebody aircraft are all optimized for long range, even the A333. There is no modern version of the A300 or B767 non ER. The 738 or A320 carry 150 passengers with less than 80 tons MTOW, even an A333 with 300 passengers is far heavier than 160 tons.

Using the technology developed now for the 787 and A350, it may be possible to build a true 300 seater with less than 150t TOW for a decent range, Boeing tried so with the 787-300 and we know this wasn't convincing.


User currently offlines4popo From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3041 times:

I love this topic since I have always wondered about it myself.

Isn't the 747-400D proof that such an aircraft is valuable? Granted, there were only 19 delivered (Japan), but I do think we are getting to the point where it would make sense in the US market as well.

I would add NYC-South Florida as potential route where frequency can be sacrificed at the expense of larger aircraft.


User currently offlineAviationfreak From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1166 posts, RR: 40
Reply 51, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2937 times:

The frequency thing I can understand on main line routes. But for some holiday destinations and sending 2, 3 or sometimes even 4 738s almost simultaneously to the same destination....? For goodness sake put a few WBs in.


I love both Airbus and Boeing as much as I love aviation!
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

During regulation, many airlines had purchased widebodies to increase efficiency (particularly in the wake of the Arab oil embargo) and offer more comfortable seating. When deregulation arrived, it took some experimenting but for the most part, the only aspect of air travel that business travelers were willing to pay a premium for was frequency. Southwest had not yet arrived at LAX in 1985 and the 757 was the only twin engine narrowbody aircraft at the time that could do a transcon. Deregulation also pressed the move to regional carriers with their lower labor costs and low capacities, which allowed increased frequencies but kept costs low because of their lower paid labor.

Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 40):
Grocery stores have long held high product margins -- which are eaten by shrinkage and overhead. Larger grocery stores in less frequency would equate into big profit centers, with shoppers potentially benefiting from an expanded selection and full-service experience. Yet this model's rarely employed. Why? Because American consumers are reluctant to grocery shop more than several minutes from their home. Much like the airline industry, the grocery industry has seen oddles of bankrupcies, closures and consolidations the past 20 years.

Grocery stores actually had much lower margins than the mom and pop stores they replaced. What changed over the years was the pressure to lower labor costs from Wal-Mart and chain consolidation. Grocery work used to be a lower middle class job. Now it is more like a working poor job. Building larger stores is not always possible, particularly in high density neighborhoods where there is little open land. Sufficient transportation and utility infrastructure is also necessary. Larger aircraft for the most part use infrastructure more efficiently than smaller aircraft. Also, unlike air travel, everyone needs to eat and few can afford or even want to eat out every night. Groceries are perishable and need to be replenished regularly. Most people need to shop for groceries at least once per week so additional distance to the store adds up quickly. That is why there are still convenience stores even though there are cheaper supermarkets with a better selection only a small additional distance away.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2842 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 47):
There were widebodies that were not designed for longer ranges.

Only example I can think of is the A300, which flew significantly further than the narrowbodies of its day. 757 emerged 10 years later and flew slightly further than the A300B4. Indeed, the A300 (& A310) is significantly heavier than the 757. Are you saying tech level is responsible for this?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 54, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2716 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 53):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 47):
There were widebodies that were not designed for longer ranges.

Only example I can think of is the A300, which flew significantly further than the narrowbodies of its day.

That's only true for the later A300-600. The original A300 of the early 1970s was a short to medium range aircraft.


User currently offlinekent350787 From Australia, joined May 2008, 982 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2687 times:

The issue of short range widebody is an interesting issue. Japan is the only place where domestic versions of widebodies have been purchased, fro the world's top 3 nost dense routes.

The next densest route is SYD-MEL and SYD-BNE is also in the top 10 IIRC. TAA purchased 3xA300B4s (Ansett went for 762s) but, apart from that, fleet flexibility seems to have been more important than route optimisation. QF currently flogs mostly 763s and an occasional A332, with DJ mostly 738s but looking to use 332s as well when available. Both carriers have 15min departures for most of the3 day


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days ago) and read 2654 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 54):
That's only true for the later A300-600. The original A300 of the early 1970s was a short to medium range aircraft.

I'd say that it is also true for the A300B4 which is the main production variant. Although I wasn't thinking about the 727, so I need to add a "twin engine" rider to my previous comments.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2595 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aviationfreak (Reply 51):
The frequency thing I can understand on main line routes. But for some holiday destinations and sending 2, 3 or sometimes even 4 738s almost simultaneously to the same destination....? For goodness sake put a few WBs in.

Assuming the airline has some available to use. Many holiday destinations are very seasonal. It might be great to have a widebody available for the traffic during high season, but what are you going to do with it the other 6-9 months? If you *have* a solid application, then absolutely, you should buy one. If you don't, then a couple of narrowbodies are far more flexible (you could send them to different destinations in the off season, you could park one) than a single WB.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 54):
That's only true for the later A300-600. The original A300 of the early 1970s was a short to medium range aircraft.

As were the original (non-ER) 767-200s. Even the DC-10-10 was not a particularly long range aircraft. You'd probably also have to count the Il-86.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2593 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting s4popo (Reply 50):
Isn't the 747-400D proof that such an aircraft is valuable? Granted, there were only 19 delivered (Japan), but I do think we are getting to the point where it would make sense in the US market as well.

I don't know the operating costs of the 744Ds, but the D's are mainly *reinforced* 744s (aka heavier*), designed to handle the higher number of cycles in their short range operations. Even then, once the "extra" cycles are used up, the idea is to convert them back to "non-D" operations. These were intended to serve a particular niche where capacity trumped almost everything else, due to severe restrictions in the number of possible flights.



*Yes, they're missing winglets, which saves some weight


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 59, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 32):
I understand that widebodies are more thirsty on a per seat basis. Only if enough freight is able to be carried could wide bodies be more "environmental".

Widebodies aren't even necessarily more thirsty per seat even in your model. An A380 loaded down with 550 passengers is WAY more fuel efficient per seat than the aggregate of 4 737s.

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):
How much more are you prepared to pay to have that extra frequency? It doesn't come free.

I am advocating less frequency.

NS


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2535 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 59):
Widebodies aren't even necessarily more thirsty per seat even in your model. An A380 loaded down with 550 passengers is WAY more fuel efficient per seat than the aggregate of 4 737s.

What is the trip fuel per seat for each on the same sector?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26029 posts, RR: 22
Reply 61, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 57):
Even the DC-10-10 was not a particularly long range aircraft.

The DC-10-10 could handle routes significantly longer than the original A300. Western used the DC-10-10 on their briefly-operated HNL-ANC-LGW route.They also acquired one DC-10-30 from NZ for their DEN-LGW route that was operated at the same time. Both routes were dropped after about 18 months.

CP Air also used 3 leased UA DC-10-10s on routes like YYZ-AMS, YYZ-FCO and YYZ-LIM. Those aircraft were obtained as part of the exchange deal that sent 3 of CP's DC-10-30s to UA for about 3 years starting in 1983 to operate UA's new SEA-HKG nonstop when they were awarded the route (along with SEA/PDX-NRT) but had no aircraft that could operate it. Their 747-100s had enough range for SEA/PDX-NRT but not SEA-HKG.

The early A300s could never have operated any of those WA and CP DC-10-10 routes.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (2 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 2192 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 47):
A wide body design that would have the same range as a narrowbody would weigth less per seat. The respone from Rwessel is again absoluetly correct:

When did I ever say that the wide body would have the same design range? In fact, I said the exact opposite!


User currently offlineCargoIT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

Quoting alexinwa (Thread starter):
I just wonder if 14 narrow body flights between point A and B is better than 7 widebody flights? Less cost on fuel with the widebody, a little less on staff, and a whole lot less stress on air traffic.

I don't have the numbers but, AS flies two daily 738 to HNL from SEA. HA does it once on a 763. Which is cheaper? And Im talking just this segmet. Not the overall airlines network!!!

The 14/7 ratio is not quite right, if you're talking about 738/763. 14x738 = about 2240 pax, 7x763 = about 1820 pax. You really only need 11 738 flights to match the pax count of the 7 763 flights. Using the 738 you can fly 2 flights on the days when demand is highest and 1 on days when demand is lower.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 64, posted (2 years 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting CargoIT (Reply 63):
Using the 738 you can fly 2 flights on the days when demand is highest and 1 on days when demand is lower.

Another point that I think is often overlooked, especially by folks just looking at international travel. The a/c will go anyway so better a widebody versus multiple narrow body a/c. When loads decline, one is either forced to continue to operate the flight either at a loss or much lower margins or attempt to source a/c to match the demand.
Multiple frequency operations are much more flexible, one can actually maintain the same schedule except use different equipment, those customers who have built their travel around a flight at a particular will still be able to travel except the A320/737 is now replaced by an RJ.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 1882 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 64):
When loads decline, one is either forced to continue to operate the flight either at a loss or much lower margins or attempt to source a/c to match the demand.

But when that happens, likely other flights are needing to be trimmed too and that should free up the smaller planes to operate the flights at the capacity required. So I expect it would only happen in the way you describe some of the time.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 66, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 64):
Multiple frequency operations are much more flexible, one can actually maintain the same schedule except use different equipment, those customers who have built their travel around a flight at a particular will still be able to travel except the A320/737 is now replaced by an RJ

How does that not apply from WB to NB? What do you do with the A320/737 now that it has been replaced? What do you do on the route where the RJ was used? What if it that route isn't dropping?


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 67, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):

How does that not apply from WB to NB?

You replace a number of 737/A320 flights with a 777, 767, A330 etc etc etc.

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
What do you do with the A320/737 now that it has been replaced?

Good question, if we go by some logic here, get rid of them to lower cost, park them, redploy to charters where if needed they can be easily recalled, open new routes, use them to increase frequency elsewhere in the network, example some regions have increased flying in winter - South - others do not, etc etc etc

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
What do you do on the route where the RJ was used?

Depends on if you already have the RJ or whether it is service that was farmed out to a regional.

Quoting cmf (Reply 66):
What if it that route isn't dropping?

So you deploy lesser a/c or as above, switch the service from mainline to regional, which is taking place all over the US right now. Scope clauses limit the a/c / seat count that can be flown by regionals, so many routes once switched from mainline are either downgraded in terms of available seats or frequency is increased to maintain the number of seats.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5312 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (2 years 8 months ago) and read 1721 times:

One other thing to consider is Southwest. Southwest used to fly short-haul routes and some medium-haul routes. If you wanted to fly to a destination that was 1500 miles away, chances were that you either made one or two connections, or your flight made 2, 3, or possible 4 stops en route.

AA and UA used to fly almost nothing but widebodies out of ORD to the West Coast (except for SNA), plus PHX. UA and/or AA also had widebody service out of ORD at various times to BOS, LGA, EWR, PHL, MIA, DFW, LAS, and DEN.

But, when UA started Shuttle by United to compete with WN on the West Coast, WN started flying longer routes. As the 737-700 entered the WN fleet, long-haul flying became even more common.

WN took away market share, leaving UA and AA (as well as the other legacies) with a choice: fly half empty widebodies or substitute narrowbodies on longer routes. They went with the latter choice.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 67):
So you deploy lesser a/c or as above, switch the service from mainline to regional

If it was that simple then nothing but regional planes would be in use. The answer, of course, is that it isn't that simple. Just as there are cases for why airlines use 150 - 180 passenger planes instead of 50 -80 passenger planes there are reasons to use 250 - 300 passenger planes instead of the 150 - 180 planes.

There is no magical line that says that above 180, 200, or whatever number the rules change.


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...
Domestic Widebodies 1996 Vs. 2009 posted Wed Dec 23 2009 09:10:32 by AlexInWa
Multiple Terminals Vs. "as Few As Possible Big" posted Tue Oct 14 2008 01:21:39 by NicoEDDF
Big Narrowbodies Vs Small Widebodies posted Sat Jun 11 2005 18:51:01 by Glom
DL Vs. Boeing: DL Wants Loans Ended For Foreigners posted Mon Apr 23 2012 08:58:20 by enilria
How Much Of A Loss Does BD Represent To VS? posted Thu Apr 19 2012 10:54:27 by planesailing
VS Fighting BA posted Mon Apr 16 2012 13:28:57 by SWALUV
VS Evacuation @ LGW April 16 posted Mon Apr 16 2012 04:42:15 by flybehubby
Will Virgin Group (or At Least VS) Go Listed? posted Mon Apr 16 2012 01:26:47 by United Airline
VS To Appeal BA/BD Decision. posted Sun Apr 15 2012 00:12:58 by mikey72
New VS Upper Class Schematics And Official Reveal! posted Sat Apr 14 2012 19:34:48 by lrgt