Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Routes With Unsuitable Aircraft  
User currently offlinedebonair From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2468 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10144 times:

Hi to you all,

I am just wondering, why some airlines are using totally unsuitable a/c on selected routes...

LOT Polish Airlines is sending their E175 regional equipment on a 4:00hrs journey from WAW to CAI.
ETHIOPIAN Airlines is sending their DASH8-Q400 on a 3:30hrs journey from ADD to ZNZ (especially with ET's 2x23KG baggage allowance in Y!)

Are these flights capable to take all passengers and cargo without restrictions? Is it still worth it to operate such trip?

Any other routes with unsuitable a/c's?

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10131 times:

Quoting debonair (Thread starter):



Hi to you all,

I am just wondering, why some airlines are using totally unsuitable a/c on selected routes...

LOT Polish Airlines is sending their E175 regional equipment on a 4:00hrs journey from WAW to CAI.
ETHIOPIAN Airlines is sending their DASH8-Q400 on a 3:30hrs journey from ADD to ZNZ (especially with ET's 2x23KG baggage allowance in Y!)

Are these flights capable to take all passengers and cargo without restrictions? Is it still worth it to operate such trip?

Any other routes with unsuitable a/c's?

Not sure if this counts, but DL tried to use the MD-88 in the past on ABQ-ATL, and they would frequently be weight restricted in the summer due to high elevation and hot temperatures. Nowadays DL uses 752s and either MD-90s, 738s, or A320s on the route during the summer.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineSFOA380 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 10080 times:

Opposite end of the spectrum is the CZ A380 CAN-LAX

User currently offlineCairnterriAIR From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9952 times:

BDL to ORD aboard AA's Embrear 145's. Bad aircraft choice all around for that route.

User currently offlinegabrielchew From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3360 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9938 times:

Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 2):
Opposite end of the spectrum is the CZ A380 CAN-LAX

I flew that recently. Y was full both ways, C maybe 60%, F full one way, nearly full on the return. Maybe awful yields, but far from empty.



http://my.flightmemory.com/shefgab Upcoming flights:LCY-ARN-AMS-LGW,STN-OTP-AMS-YUL,YQB-JFK-LAX-DUS-STN,LGW-DXB-BKK-HKG-
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9878 times:

Quoting debonair (Thread starter):
LOT Polish Airlines is sending their E175 regional equipment on a 4:00hrs journey from WAW to CAI.

AC uses the E190 on some routes with block time over 5 hours, example YYZ-SEA (westbound 5:15, eastbound 4:27) and on many routes around 4 hrs.

AC (Jazz) also uses the CRJ-705 (CRJ-900 with fewer seats) on IAH-YYC (a little over 4 hrs).


User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2434 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9779 times:

I guess if the aircraft in question are usually operating within parameters or with little weight penalty, then I guess that would mean these aircraft are appropriate for these routes if they make money. Or is this from a comfort standpoint?

My   



A landing EVERYONE can walk away from, is a good landing.
User currently offlineAS737MAX From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 328 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9743 times:

Any long flight on a regional aircraft is miserable

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 5):

Are there not more pax flying IAH-YYC to warrant an E-190? Does UA fly it?



40 Flights/39,010 Miles Flown
User currently onlineadamh8297 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1044 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9719 times:

Quoting gabrielchew (Reply 4):
I flew that recently. Y was full both ways, C maybe 60%, F full one way, nearly full on the return. Maybe awful yields, but far from empty.

Could the A380 be too much for SIN-LHR at 3x daily? I was on a rather empty flight (in Y) in 2012 with most people having 2-3 seats to themselves but who knows how the upper classes were filled.


User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 3338 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AS737MAX (Reply 7):
Are there not more pax flying IAH-YYC to warrant an E-190? Does UA fly it?

UA flie it daily with mainline equipment (mostly a320s)

Quoting AS737MAX (Reply 7):
Any long flight on a regional aircraft is miserable

I've done 3+ hours on E-175s, and they are as comfortable as any mainline aircraft.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9674 times:

AS using the 737-900 (non-ER) on PVR-SEA. They had to offload luggage and route it through LAX due to weight restrictions. Of course PVR didn't bother to tell anyone so everyone without luggage in SEA had to stand in the lost luggage line. The -900 non-ER is a bit short legged for PVR-SEA. A 737-800 would work fine.

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9588 times:

Cue all the posts on TATL 757s (which for the most part are totally suitable).

I'd nominate all the 777s flying short routes around Asia, although many of them are being replaced by A330s. The 777-200A ended up being a bit of a dog and the heavier variants are just way too much airplane for short flights. The cost per seat has to be higher than it would be with multiple narrowbody frequencies.

This goes double for all the widebodies flying sub-60 minute routes around Japan.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9360 times:

How about SQ using widebody equipment on one hour (and less!) flights to and from SIN? They should have narrowbodied aircraft for that   They will max out their airframes on cycles in no time...


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineBlueJuice From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 254 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9340 times:

AS flying to Hawaii out of SEA on 738s can be troublesome in the winter when headwinds are strong. Unlike North American transcon A320s or TATL 757s, there is no way to make a tech stop to pump in a few more pounds of JET-A. Many stories of people getting bumped and luggage left behind when the winds do not cooperate.. Not a fun way to start a tropical vacation.

[Edited 2013-08-16 01:04:47]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9119 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 9):
Quoting AS737MAX (Reply 7):Are there not more pax flying IAH-YYC to warrant an E-190? Does UA fly it?
UA flie it daily with mainline equipment (mostly a320s)

UA's current schedule shows a mix of 738, 739, 752 and A320 on IAH-YYC. In some cases it varies by day of week.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17172 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9110 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 6):

I guess if the aircraft in question are usually operating within parameters or with little weight penalty, then I guess that would mean these aircraft are appropriate for these routes if they make money. Or is this from a comfort standpoint?

  

Quoting adamh8297 (Reply 8):
Could the A380 be too much for SIN-LHR at 3x daily? I was on a rather empty flight (in Y) in 2012 with most people having 2-3 seats to themselves but who knows how the upper classes were filled.

One flight does not statistics make. This route is prime 744 territory so methinks a 380 is hardly a huge leap.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 12):

How about SQ using widebody equipment on one hour (and less!) flights to and from SIN? They should have narrowbodied aircraft for that   They will max out their airframes on cycles in no time...

Welcome to east Asia. Considering SQ is quite nicely profitable, I'm sure they've done their maths...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineUnited1689 From United States of America, joined May 2013, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8772 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
Cue all the posts on TATL 757s (which for the most part are totally suitable).

Why? I've heard many stories of westbound 757s stopping in Newfoundland for a tech stop and even a UA 752 in ACY because it couldn't make it the 150nmi more to IAD.

Also we must consider DL's ATL-BSB route. That's a 9hr flight at around 3700nmi on a 752. I'm sure there are some payload restrictions on that one...



The act of "driving" is only possible with a manual transmission.
User currently offlineLZ129 From Germany, joined Feb 2013, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8642 times:

EY regularily sends an A345 on its AUH - FRA route. That's a 2.600 nm flight in an aircraft designed for ultra-long haul flights.

User currently offlinesierra3tango From Bahrain, joined Mar 2013, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days ago) and read 8598 times:

All of EK's local flights to GCC, Pakistan, northern India & Iran, think they even send a 380 to JED

GF used to do the same, but they were more in the way of positioning / connecting flights

Regularly flown on wide bodies on domestic flights with SV


User currently offlinedebonair From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2468 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8246 times:

Also very interesting, after Travel Service canceled their B787 order, we will see many more years come the B737-800 on worldwide charter services, like here in Cancun (via Azores and Cuba):


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rodolfo García López - Aviation Photography of Mexico.



User currently offlinethreeifbyair From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 709 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8185 times:

Several situations that come to mind:

PIT-DEN on an E145 (UAX - ExpressJet). Although the same argument can hold for many of the insanely long UAX E145 flights, this case is a little different. The other PIT-DEN flights are usually E170 or Airbii/737s. This is not a long and thin route that has 3x E145s just to have frequency.

A lot of the AS intra-Alaska routes on 734s. The pax demand is usually nowhere near a 734's capacity. Hence, AS is planning to bring QX Q400s to Alaska.

Mainline aircraft operating out of EYW are often weight-restricted. EYW is about as STOL as it gets.

Until AA started using Republic with E175s, there were a ton of AE E145 routes that deserved a larger aircraft but not as large as an MD80.

Also, for fun times, how about 3h+ on a Saab 340 ANC-DUT (Dutch Harbor/Unalaska).


User currently offlineatct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2345 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7793 times:

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 20):
A lot of the AS intra-Alaska routes on 734s. The pax demand is usually nowhere near a 734's capacity. Hence, AS is planning to bring QX Q400s to Alaska.

A lot of these flights are Combi's and subsidized.



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7200 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 9):
I've done 3+ hours on E-175s, and they are as comfortable as any mainline aircraft.

The E170/175 are very comfortable to fly in. I've done 3:00+ in an E145 and I would have rather been stuck in a broken elevator with Rachael Maddow and Rosie O'Donnell instead.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlineatct From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2345 posts, RR: 38
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7147 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 22):
I've done 3:00+ in an E145

I used to do IAH-PIT frequently in the E45X and it's not a bad ride. If you had an A seat it was a better ride than the 737-500's. The only perk of the 735 was the chance at upgrades.



"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7079 times:

Quoting United1689 (Reply 16):
Why? I've heard many stories of westbound 757s stopping in Newfoundland for a tech stop and even a UA 752 in ACY because it couldn't make it the 150nmi more to IAD.

If we heard about other tech stops as often as we heard about TATL 757 tech stops, we'd think every airplane was unsuitable for every route. A couple of routes (no longer operated) pushed the limits -- FRA-DTW and TXL-EWR, and CDG-IAD. Most routes were and are just fine.

Quoting United1689 (Reply 16):
Also we must consider DL's ATL-BSB route. That's a 9hr flight at around 3700nmi on a 752. I'm sure there are some payload restrictions on that one...

Not sure whether there are ever restrictions, but you can go a lot further north-south than you can westbound across the Atlantic because you aren't flying straight into a headwind.

[Edited 2013-08-27 13:36:00]

User currently offlineUnited1689 From United States of America, joined May 2013, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7050 times:

Quoting United1689 (Reply 16):
Also we must consider DL's ATL-BSB route. That's a 9hr flight at around 3700nmi on a 752. I'm sure there are some payload restrictions on that one...
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
Not sure whether there are ever restrictions, but you can go a lot further north-south than you can westbound across the Atlantic because you aren't flying straight into a headwind.

No headwinds, but BSB is a hot and high airport.

ET operates a 763 on ADD-GRU, and it requires two tech stops for a total flight time of around 17.5hrs. At that point is it still economic to operate a 767? I would think a non-stop 772 or 788 would be more profitable as there are two less takeoffs and climb-outs...

Also, TG operates A380 with a block time of around 3hrs 25min BKK-HKG. That's a bit short for the double decker four-holer no?

Although very vague, I seem to remember QX doing PDX-ORD on a Q400, not sure if it was scheduled but I believe there were in fact pax on that one...



The act of "driving" is only possible with a manual transmission.
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6864 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 22):
The E170/175 are very comfortable to fly in. I've done 3:00+ in an E145 and I would have rather been stuck in a broken elevator with Rachael Maddow and Rosie O'Donnell instead.

They are comfortable aircraft (in the back. The pilot seats suck) but when you get over 3 hours you quickly start running into performance issues if you're dealing with high density altitude or alternates for weather. This is particularly true of the 175 since has the same wing, engines and fuel capacity as the 170 but weighs a couple thousand pounds more.

When I was flying the line DL had us flying ATL-COS for a very short time one summer. We were weight restricted both times we did it. Oddly enough ATL-DEN was never a problem in the 170 on the UAX side. Now you know who I used to fly for.  



DMI
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25983 posts, RR: 22
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6855 times:

Quoting United1689 (Reply 25):
ET operates a 763 on ADD-GRU, and it requires two tech stops for a total flight time of around 17.5hrs. At that point is it still economic to operate a 767? I would think a non-stop 772 or 788 would be more profitable as there are two less takeoffs and climb-outs...

There are no tech stops on that route and ET uses the 787-8, not the 763, based on current schedules.

The flight operates ADD-LFW-GIG-GRU-LFW-ADD.

LFW (Lomé, Togo) is a traffic stop. ET stops there since LFW is the hub for their ASKY Airlines subsidiary that feeds traffic from/to many other points in West Africa. The only sector ET can't carry traffic on is the short domestic sector GIG-GRU which is operated in one direction only on a triangular routing to permit service to both GIG and GRU on the same flight..


User currently offlinecrj900lr From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6822 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 22):
The E170/175 are very comfortable to fly in.

Took one from ORD-YEG not to long ago and it was a excellent ride. I believe it was close to 3 hrs.


User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6747 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pilotpip (Reply 26):
ey are comfortable aircraft (in the back. The pilot seats suck)

Sorry to hear about the E170 crew seats. I would have thought that crew comfort/human factors would have been near the top of the aircraft design.

I understand the union's position on the scope clauses but it's unfortunate that it hurts the airline's ability to put the right aircraft in the right markets. With 76 seats max for express carriers, UA is left with a huge capacity gap between 76 seats and the 115-seat B735. I doubt that UA would ever consider acquiring an E190/E195 sub-fleet on their own due to training/maint./and other issues with a mixed fleet but as a paying passenger (the kind that pays all the airline bills) I would much rather ride in a 2x2 seating 100-seater than a 3x3 115-seater.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlineflight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6702 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 29):

Um. UA's 735's have been gone for some time.


User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6679 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flight152 (Reply 30):
Um. UA's 735's have been gone for some time.

I actually knew that...meant to type 737.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6675 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 29):
I understand the union's position on the scope clauses but it's unfortunate that it hurts the airline's ability to put the right aircraft in the right markets. With 76 seats max for express carriers, UA is left with a huge capacity gap between 76 seats and the 115-seat B735. I doubt that UA would ever consider acquiring an E190/E195 sub-fleet on their own due to training/maint./and other issues with a mixed fleet but as a paying passenger (the kind that pays all the airline bills) I would much rather ride in a 2x2 seating 100-seater than a 3x3 115-seater.

There is nothing preventing the mainline carriers from flying the larger E-jets (US Airways has 190s). Sometimes it's not cost effective to fly a slightly smaller/larger variant due to economies of scale, etc. IT's also not always less expensive to subcontract out and you're taking a lot of risk in regard to the quality of your product/brand identity.

For the US market, the ~100 seat aircraft don't seem to be cost effective. Most airlines have had them in the past (735, A-318, F-100) but have abandoned them.



DMI
User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 6626 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pilotpip (Reply 32):
Most airlines have had them in the past (735, A-318, F-100) but have abandoned them.

I understand that the 735/A318s were not as efficient as expected but that was because they were designed to be larger and only de-rated the powerplants to make them adequate for the smaller airframes. I would have thought that the E170/E190 family was far more efficient (per seat) as they were designed to be smaller and the later versions were stretched with the appropriate engine size out of the box.

I would imagine that crew costs are far more of an issue with the smaller aircraft as the costs are spread out over fewer seats. If the legacy carrier unions demand salaries that make flying smaller A/C uneconomical, then that's one thing. If they then turn around and prohibit the regionals from even flying the larger regionals under the UA/AA/DL banners then they're missing a big opportunity to serve many markets more efficiently.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6543 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 33):
I would imagine that crew costs are far more of an issue with the smaller aircraft as the costs are spread out over fewer seats. If the legacy carrier unions demand salaries that make flying smaller A/C uneconomical, then that's one thing. If they then turn around and prohibit the regionals from even flying the larger regionals under the UA/AA/DL banners then they're missing a big opportunity to serve many markets more efficiently.

Frequency doesn't always equal cost efficiency. It's far more expensive to operate 2 170s every 90 minutes than it is one 737 once every three hours. While crew costs may be lower at a regional the legacy carrier still has to pay a regional enough to be profitable.



DMI
User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6436 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pilotpip (Reply 34):
Frequency doesn't always equal cost efficiency. It's far more expensive to operate 2 170s every 90 minutes than it is one 737 once every three hours. While crew costs may be lower at a regional the legacy carrier still has to pay a regional enough to be profitable.

I understand that but what I was trying to get at, in a round-about way, is that as markets mature, the 40-45 seat gap between large RJs and small mainline A/C is a significant percentage. If you had the same number of flights and 100 people want to fly from point A to point B, with a large RJ, you're going to leave 25 pax at the gate or put them on a competitor. If you have a 737, or equivalent, you'll have 20 empty seats.

If you continually have 100% or other very high load factors, you are losing customers because people are unable to book tickets online and you'll probably never know how many people looked elsewhere for transportation.

Having much higher load factors on RJs also leave less flexibility for irreg-ops recovery or the ability to absorb pax. from competitors that are oversold or cancel.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6379 times:

True, but at some point the cost of a small fleet of aircraft optimized in size doesn't see a cost savings. When comparing a 190 to a 737-700 or A-319 yes, you may have some empty seats but the labor cost is going to only be marginally higher if at all depending on their pay structure (you'll likely have the same number of crew members on board). There are a lot of other costs factored in such as parts, training, gse, etc. Those costs might not justify a savings on fuel with a few aircraft to optimize a few thinner routes when you have dozens of aircraft in another family.

I don't really buy into the hype of frequency. When you look at schedules in the US most carriers have flights from one destination to another at very similar times, at similar costs. Cutting frequency would save airlines a ton of money on many fronts. Labor and fuel are just a couple. Limiting the customer won't effect a carrier as much as many think. If they need to go, they go when the airline has a flight available. Most passengers don't care about when they go, or even who they go on. They'll go through 3 connections to think they're saving $10 (which in reality is a farce when they have to eat a couple meals in the airport and miss their connection). In my experience less than half even knew/cared who they were flying on.

Of course most people on this forum are the exception to this rule.



DMI
User currently offlinejetblastdubai From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 789 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting pilotpip (Reply 36):
There are a lot of other costs factored in such as parts, training, gse, etc

Not if the regional carrier was allowed to fly the larger A/C though. The union scope clauses are preventing companies from being as efficient as possible. The majors' pay scales would probably make flying a 80-100 seater uneconomical while the lower-paid regional carrier are prohibited from flying them.

I bet the regional guys would love the opportunity to fly the larger equipment and earn the wages that would be associated with it, even though they'd still be far below what a legacy pilot would earn.



A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is when you can re-use the aircraft.
User currently offlineThrottleHold From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 659 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6242 times:

Quoting adamh8297 (Reply 8):
Could the A380 be too much for SIN-LHR at 3x daily? I was on a rather empty flight (in Y) in 2012 with most people having 2-3 seats to themselves but who knows how the upper classes were filled.

EK fly 5x daily 380's DXB-LHR and QF 2x daily DXB-LHR.
Trying to get a non-reversible seat is nearly impossible.


User currently offlineflight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6020 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 37):
I bet the regional guys would love the opportunity to fly the larger equipment

H-E-C-K (self edited) No. Almost all of us are waiting an opportunity to get out of a regional and work for a company that actually pays us a livable wage. The idea of paying slightly more to fly around another 35+ seats tells me that either you are completely clueless to the current state of affairs in the regional industry, don't have any respect for us and/or think we are just in this profession to fly the biggest/newest equipment above all else.

[Edited 2013-09-01 16:33:11]

User currently offlinepilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 10
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5837 times:

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 37):
I bet the regional guys would love the opportunity to fly the larger equipment and earn the wages that would be associated with it, even though they'd still be far below what a legacy pilot would earn.

You couldn't be more wrong. There is supposed to be a career progression and the erosion of scope is also eroding what little quality of life still existed in the US airline industry. Regional pilots flying 70+ seat jets today are making far less than their counterparts were 15-20 years ago flying turboprops and they actually had some hope of seeing a good career. This is one of the biggest reasons I got out.



DMI
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5462 times:

Quoting United1689 (Reply 16):
Also we must consider DL's ATL-BSB route. That's a 9hr flight at around 3700nmi on a 752. I'm sure there are some payload restrictions on that one...
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 24):
Not sure whether there are ever restrictions, but you can go a lot further north-south than you can westbound across the Atlantic because you aren't flying straight into a headwind.

There are year-round restrictions on ATL-BSB due to structural limits on take-off. The alternates are usually a bit out of the way combined with very high bag loads. Current cap is 161 pax (a/c can seat 170) but this changes frequently.

[Edited 2013-09-05 21:42:11]


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5460 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
Not sure if this counts, but DL tried to use the MD-88 in the past on ABQ-ATL, and they would frequently be weight restricted in the summer due to high elevation and hot temperatures. Nowadays DL uses 752s and either MD-90s, 738s, or A320s on the route during the summer.

Pax cap still in place for the 90s but everything else can leave full. Going into the winter months nothing will be an issue.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5374 times:

Quoting United1689 (Reply 25):
Although very vague, I seem to remember QX doing PDX-ORD on a Q400, not sure if it was scheduled but I believe there were in fact pax on that one...

QX has never flown to ORD. QX did do PDX-DEN with a CRJ (or was it BOI-DEN?). The longest QX Q400 flight was LAX-LAP. Now it's SEA-FAT, AFAIK.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5216 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5067 times:

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 9):
I've done 3+ hours on E-175s, and they are as comfortable as any mainline aircraft.

Agreed. Recently flew FRA-TRN more comfortable than any A320 I've ever flown on like YYZ-LAX or AKL-MEL.


User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4951 times:

Quoting pilotpip (Reply 36):
I don't really buy into the hype of frequency. When you look at schedules in the US most carriers have flights from one destination to another at very similar times, at similar costs. Cutting frequency would save airlines a ton of money on many fronts. Labor and fuel are just a couple. Limiting the customer won't effect a carrier as much as many think. If they need to go, they go when the airline has a flight available. Most passengers don't care about when they go, or even who they go on. They'll go through 3 connections to think they're saving $10 (which in reality is a farce when they have to eat a couple meals in the airport and miss their connection). In my experience less than half even knew/cared who they were flying on.

Trouble is, airlines are not doing the frequency things for those guys who will try to save 10 bucks.
They do it for the guy who has to be in Chicago on Monday and Tulsa on Wednesday, while working a full day home in NYC on Tuesday. If there is A airline that has him leave NYC at 10 to arrive at 12 and leave Chicago at 2... he is not going to use them, because he would have to fly out Sunday, get home god-knows-how, and tun directly from the office to the airport for his Tulsa flight. He will pay extra to the airline that has him out at 7, gives him a full day of work in Chicago and lets him be back home by 7 p.m.



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineKenanC From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Don't forget about QF DFW-BNE on the 744. It really does push it.


Flown: A319/20/21/33/43/88 B737/38/39/52/63/72/7W ERJ135/40/45 CRJ200 ATR42
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4348 times:

Quoting KenanC (Reply 46):
Don't forget about QF DFW-BNE on the 744. It really does push it.

Actually, 747-400ER's (the only non-freighter ER's built!). QF was the only airline to order passenger extended range models...  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Routes With Unsuitable Aircraft
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Routes And A/c Fully Loaded With Fuel. posted Mon Nov 6 2006 06:17:47 by Mirrodie
Flight Ops At NBO With New Runway posted Tue Jul 30 2013 21:23:25 by sunarcherphoto
Airliners With Heterogeneous Powerplants posted Sun Jul 28 2013 10:23:15 by ei164
Question Into Airline Ops With Winglets.... posted Fri Jul 26 2013 07:21:25 by divemaster08
What Drives PIP's For Types With 1 Engine Option? posted Sun Jun 23 2013 13:08:04 by art
Most Demanding Long Haul Routes posted Sat Jun 15 2013 23:35:11 by Max Q
Airshow Fly-by: Why Always With Flaps On? posted Sat Jun 15 2013 07:39:49 by A380900
SQ A345 Under Tow With Main Cargo Door Open? posted Sat Jun 15 2013 00:34:20 by EK413
Landing Gear Aligning With Crosswinds posted Thu Jun 13 2013 09:57:29 by saafnav
Helicopters With Ejection Seats posted Sun Jun 9 2013 12:52:40 by flyingturtle

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format