JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1706 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Let’s say you’ve done the impossible and convinced a group of rich but naïve investors to back you in the creation a major new U.S. airline. This airline’s route structure would look quite similar to that of American Airlines. You’re planning a strong domestic U.S. network, flights to a few key Asian destinations such as HKG, NRT, OSA and BKK, a large presence in the Caribbean and Central and South America, and good coverage of the major European business centers from the U.S. Your financiers have given you a blank check with which to acquire your fleet. What types would you buy? Here are my choices:
A318/A319/A320 – most domestic U.S., Central American and Caribbean routes and some light-density northern South American flights
757-200 – high-density domestic U.S. routes and some Caribbean, Central and South American flights.
767-200 – long, thin transatlantic flights
767-300 – high-density domestic U.S. routes, high-density Caribbean routes, most South American and most European flights.
777-200 – All Asian flights, a few domestic U.S. hub-to-hub flights, and a few high-density European routes.
This is a pretty boring fleet from a planespotter’s perspective, but I think it would be efficient and would get the job done.
Jcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2368 times:
A318/319/320-Most US Domestic
A321-Some US Domestic, some Hawaii, Carribean, Mexico, very thin US-Europe routes, Latin America flights
A330-European/Indian Subcontinent flights, some Hawaii, some Transcon, South America flights
A340-West coast to Europe flights, Pacific flights, flights to Johannesburg
As someones signature says...got Commonality?
As for my commuter network:
JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1706 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2351 times:
"As someones signature says...got Commonality?"
Ah yes... but I want to keep both manufacturers on their toes and working for my best interests. A little bit of healthy competition in the form of orders from both Boeing and Airbus keeps them from getting too cocky about their stranglehold on my fleet. If Airbus starts to do things that aren't making me happy with my fleet of A320s, I can threaten to place my next narrowbody order with Boeing in the form of the 737NG. Likewise, Airbus will get my next widebody order if Boeing doesn't keep me happy. I could still make these threats without actually buying planes from the competition, but having contracts in place with both manufacturers makes those threats that much more credible.
Scott4AA From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 321 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2295 times:
737-700/900 - short medium haul hub-spoke routes
757-200 - short medium haul hub-spoke routes
767-200 - transcons, international routes not supported by 777
767-400 - hub-hub routes, high density/low yield routes, Hawaii
777-200ER/LR - Asia, South America, Europe
777-300ER - High density Asia, South America, Europ
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 80
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2276 times:
Heh I wonder how many flights a day NY-LA could support with the A380.
I've been dreaming a lot lately about an all-freight airline...
BAe ATP-Fs for the 5-8 ton regional feeder market
BAe 146QTs for the 9-11 ton regional feeder to very thin medium range market
A320/321Fs unless those fail to materialize in 2004, otherwise (ew) 737-300Fs or this
mystical 737NG 20 ton freighter the Boeing website alludes to but doesn't say anything about... anyway for the 11-20 ton busy regional and thinner medium range market
A310-200 and -300F conversions for the medium-weight short and medium range trunks and
the rare feeder in the 20 to 35 ton market
Brand-new factory-built A300F4-600Rs for the heavy short and medium range and lighter medium-to-long range market - 35 to 54 tons
Brand-new A330-200Fs for heavy transcontinental, medium-heavy East Coast-Europe and SEA/PDX-ANC-Northeast Asia. If these didn't materialize, then I'd reluctantly choose 767-300Fs or MD-11Fs for this chore. - 54 to 65 or 91 tons
I think my dream fleet would have to have 747-400ERFs to fill that weird A330/MD-11F to A380F gap... this in the 65 to 110 ton gap.
Then of course the A380-800F for transcontinental hub-hub traffic, hub-Europe, hub-Asia, and Asia-Europe routes. Woo hoo 155 tons!
CVG777 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1251 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
Commuter/Connection Aircraft + typical routes aircraft would be operated on
B1900D Point-to-Point, Some Hub-to-Spoke
DH8-200 Point-to-Point, Some Hub-to-Spoke
Two class aircraft...Domestic US, Canada, Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, certain South American destinations.
Three-Class Aircraft- Certain transcontinental US routes, Europe, South America, Asia
TxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2216 times:
If I were running an airline, I think I'd like to make a profit.
Thus my decision would be real easy.
I would buy B737-700s.
If I found the need to go international, I'd whine until Boeing hooked me up with an ETOPS version that would cross the North Atlantic. They already do California-Hawaii and seem to be doing okay across there.
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 7356 posts, RR: 78
Reply 15, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2116 times:
In my opinion, Airbuses are fine aircraft but I wouldn't use it for high-cycle operations... but using 717s would restrict me to short haulers... So... I'm keeping my fleets simple and on the small end...
If I have to use new aircraft only I would use...
737NGs, keeping it to 700s and 800s only for <180 seaters
B767-200ERs for transcon and hub to hub.
A330-200s for transcontinental and transatlantics <270 seats.
Virtual hubbing in Vancouver for the Asian flights with smaller types feeding the traffic to medium and large cities in USA. This will prevent passengers from transitting in "horrible sterile areas" at major airports... if such operations are not allowed, the I'd use Seattle. There's no point in competing with the Asian carriers from the major citiies to Asia...
Use the 762ER to serve smaller cities in Japan direct from West coast USA.
For denser routes, 777-200ERs for Transpacific and higher capacity Transatlantic... <300 seaters.
The largest planes I would acquire will be 777-300ERs.
BKK would be served via ICN.
Just my useless idea !
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2094 times:
To get started:
MD-80s/90s (short-medium hub-and spoke domestic routes)
757-200 (long-haul domestic and North American/Carribean hub and spoke routes)
767-200/300 (international routes covering Asia, Europe and South America)
747-200 (international high-density routes such as London-New York and San Francisco-Tokyo)
After getting the airline established, I'd work for these fleet types:
717-300 (to replace MD-80s while increasing frequency)
737-800 (to replace 757s and work high-density short-medium routes)
767-300ER/LR (to replace older 767s and cover cross-country domestic routes)
777-200/300 (to replace 747s)
MCI (of course I'd choose that one)
It's the city nearest to the center of the contiguous 48 states, center of population of the US, and center of population to the North American continent. Would be an excellent cross-country hub if an airline with enough seed money to be effective took it up.
BWI or IAD
For northeastern routes and as a base for shutlle ops if we choose to operate them
BNA, BHM, CLT, or GSO (some of these would need terminal expansions)
For southeast routes and added frequency to Carribean destinations
For western routes and as a maintenance base. Also a good destination for any airline.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.