letsgetwet
Posts: 490
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:08 pm

CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 5:55 am

NEW YORK, May 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Continental Airlines (NYSE: CAL - News) tomorrow will inaugurate daily nonstop flights between its hub at Newark Liberty International Airport and Cologne/Bonn, Germany. This will be the only scheduled nonstop transatlantic service between the U.S. to the two German cities.



"Starting service to Cologne/Bonn is another important step in the expansion of our transatlantic network," said Jim Summerford, Continental's vice president Europe, Middle East and India. "This route gives our customers a choice of four Continental destinations in Germany, including our existing service to Berlin, Frankfurt and Hamburg."

Later this month, Continental will add daily nonstop service to Barcelona and Copenhagen, bringing to 28 the number of transatlantic destinations served via Newark Liberty.

Service to Cologne/Bonn will be operated with a 172-seat Boeing 757-200 aircraft, carrying 16 passengers in the BusinessFirst cabin and 156 in economy.

Flight 110 will depart Newark Liberty daily at 6:45 p.m., arriving in Cologne/Bonn at 8:10 a.m. the following day. The return trip, flight 111, departs Cologne/Bonn daily at 10:35 a.m., arriving in New York/Newark at 1:20 p.m. Flying times will be approximately 7 hours, 25 minutes eastbound and 8 hours, 45 minutes westbound. During the winter months, when demand traditionally declines, Continental will scale back to five flights per week, but revert to daily service again in Spring 2007.

The new Cologne/Bonn flights feature Continental's renowned BusinessFirst service. This premium-class cabin has extra-wide electronic sleeper seats with 55-inch/140-cm pitch, adjustable winged headrests and personal video screens. Other BusinessFirst amenities include gourmet menus, award-winning wines and champagnes, and a specially selected and trained corps of more than 200 concierges who provide personalized pre-flight and post-flight services for BusinessFirst customers at 26 key airports worldwide.

As part of the route launch, Continental is offering a special promotion to its frequent flyers. OnePass members who book and travel to Cologne between May 10, 2006 and July 31, 2006 will earn 2,000 bonus miles. This offer requires registration. OnePass members can register for the promotion online at continental.com using promotion code 58037.

Continental Airlines is the world's sixth-largest airline. Continental, together with Continental Express and Continental Connection, has more than 3,200 daily departures throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia, serving 151 domestic and 137 international destinations. More than 400 additional points are served via SkyTeam alliance airlines. With more than 41,000 employees, Continental has hubs serving New York, Houston, Cleveland and Guam, and together with Continental Express, carries approximately 61 million passengers per year. Continental consistently earns awards and critical acclaim for both its operation and its corporate culture.

For the third consecutive year, FORTUNE magazine named Continental the No. 1 Most Admired Global Airline on its 2006 list of Most Admired Global Companies. Continental was also named the No. 1 airline on the publication's

2006 America's Most Admired airline industry list. In 2005, Continental again won major awards at the OAG Airline of the Year Awards including "Airline of the Year" and "Best Airline Based in North America" for the second consecutive year, and "Best Executive/Business Class" for the third consecutive year. For more company information, visit continental.com.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Continental Airlines
 
Cory6188
Posts: 2621
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:29 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 6:28 am

How are advance bookings looking on this route? Is anyone from CO privvy to that kind of info?
 
Indio66
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:22 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 8:02 am

I think CO could do great with service from EWR to Dusseldorf and MUC.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 8:28 am

Quoting Cory6188 (Reply 1):
How are advance bookings looking on this route? Is anyone from CO privvy to that kind of info?

Bookings are exceeding expectations and are quite good, in both directions, through the summer season........CO may have a surprise hit here. I live near CGN, and the Cologne/Bonn/Aachen population is thrilled to have a nonstop connection to the US. Travel Agents (remember those?) are also supporting the route. It makes sense, there is a large population in this area that is tired of having to go to Frankfurt (either by connecting flight, connecting railroad "flight", or car) to pick up longhaul flights. Its also interesting to note that CO did not offer cheap fares to launch the route and the bookings look good anyway. Ironically, as you may know, Cologne is the official headquarters of LH.

Quoting Indio66 (Reply 2):
I think CO could do great with service from EWR to Dusseldorf and MUC.

You may know that CO has flow both the EWR-DUS and EWR-MUC routes and are the only EUropean routes (along with EWR-Stansted) that CO has dropped. DUS lost money after CO lost a big corporate account.....and LH's bizjet service to EWR covers the premium demand, CO has stated that it is not going back to DUS. As for MUC, CO flew the route years ago (back in the late 80s when CO was a very different airline than it is today) and pulled out due to lack of J class demand.......CO flew DC10s on the route which went out nearly full in Y and empty in J class, resulting in terrible yeilds and losses. Munich is solid STAR alliance territory, with lots of loyal FFs......so it would be tough for CO to make the route work. That being said, there are rumors that CO is again looking at MUC (after years of saying; no way) as a possible 752 Winglet destination; range will be tight, so its a longshot in my opinion.
 
Checo77
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:39 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 9:18 am

Next CO European destination will be PRG. I read it in a Czech Newspaper. CSA will drop EWR and CO will start PRG. Effective: Next summer. Possible plane: 767.

Adam
Czech Boeing lover living in Lima
 
Avianca
Posts: 5283
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 9:22 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 3):
back in the late 80s when CO was a very different airline than it is today)

they operatet in to muc in the early 90's not in the 80s
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
klwright69
Posts: 2441
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 9:32 am

Quoting Avianca (Reply 5):
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 3):
back in the late 80s when CO was a very different airline than it is today)

they operatet in to muc in the early 90's not in the 80s

Thanks Avianca....That is what I was about to say!
 
Avianca
Posts: 5283
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:33 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 9:37 am

Quoting Checo77 (Reply 4):
Next CO European destination will be PRG. I read it in a Czech Newspaper. CSA will drop EWR and CO will start PRG. Effective: Next summer. Possible plane: 767

not sure if with the 767, PRG was already mentioned in the past as a possible 757 destination alongside MUC.
Colombia es el Mundo Y el Mundo es Colombia
 
DAL767400ER
Posts: 5084
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:47 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 5:02 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 3):
That being said, there are rumors that CO is again looking at MUC (after years of saying; no way) as a possible 752 Winglet destination; range will be tight, so its a longshot in my opinion.

Well, EWR-MUC is some 70 miles longer than EWR-TXL, and that flight is already often enough required to stop for fuel. Can't imagine them risking that against LH from MUC, which doesn't have to stop for fuel  Wink . Better stay in markets like CGN: No competition, and less fuel-stop risk.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 9:19 pm

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 8):
and that flight is already often enough required to stop for fuel.

Whats "often", once a month, once a week, every other day?
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1226
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 10:34 pm

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 8):
and that flight is already often enough required to stop for fuel.

I think you meant exceedingly rare that it stops for fuel.
 
DAL767400ER
Posts: 5084
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:47 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 10:39 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
Whats "often", once a month, once a week, every other day?

No idea on the actual regularity, but the sources I have read, mostly German aviation magazines and regular newspapers, mention these stops pretty often, as happening a few times a month, depending on the winds on the route.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 10):
I think you meant exceedingly rare that it stops for fuel.

Refer to above, I have no firm numbers, but for CO's sake, I do hope that the stops are happening less often.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Wed May 10, 2006 11:49 pm

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 11):
No idea on the actual regularity

How can one say

Quote:
Often

when one admits they don't even know how many times it has happened, or whether it has even happened at all.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1226
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 12:06 am

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 11):
Quoting STT757 (Reply 9):
Whats "often", once a month, once a week, every other day?

No idea on the actual regularity, but the sources I have read, mostly German aviation magazines and regular newspapers, mention these stops pretty often, as happening a few times a month, depending on the winds on the route.

Does that makes sense to you? If an airline was marketing a nonstop flight with connections in EWR and the plane stopped for fuel, "a few times a month" that would destroy their reputation and lead to horrible customer service, missed connections etc.

I don't have the numbers handy, but the fuel diversion rates are incredibly low. Maybe they were lucky there was a mild winter in New York this year with only two sizeable snow storms. But in that situation every flight had to likely divert.

Despite the rumor mill, it just doesn't happen as often as you think.
 
DAL767400ER
Posts: 5084
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:47 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 12:14 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 12):
How can one say

Quote:
Often

when one admits they don't even know how many times it has happened, or whether it has even happened at all.

Again, I am going by the sources I have read on this issue, and fuel stops "a few times per month" are often IMO. Note that I am NOT saying that these days fuel stops happen on a daily basis, but just that do happen, and that regularly, again, going by the articles I have read about that.
And before any prejudice arises, which happens all too easily, no, I'm not saying this just to bash CO and their use of 757s across the pond, I'm well aware that other airlines have such routes as well, e.g. like DL has STR-ATL, which all too often has to refuel in Canada as well.
 
User avatar
mbm3
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 2:24 am

CO did run in to some issues last year when the winds aloft were abnormally high speed for the flight back across the Atlantic. Combined with bad weather in EWR, it caused the need for tech stops in Gander on several of the long 752 routes.
Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
 
cgnnrw
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 3:11 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 3):
there is a large population in this area that is tired of having to go to Frankfurt (either by connecting flight, connecting railroad "flight", or car) to pick up longhaul flights.

AMEN!!!!!!!!! I'm a perfect example....I can walk to the S-bahn station and get on the train and be at the aiport in 20 minutes. That sure beats a 2 hour drive (with luck) to FRA.

I was hoping to get to the airport tomorrow to witness the maiden flight but alas the office calls and I won't be able to make it to the airport. I'll try to get there on weekend to see CO's 757 line up at T2.
A330 man.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 3:02 am

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 14):
like DL has STR-ATL, which all too often has to refuel in Canada as well.

Comments like this really shoot your credibility. There is no reason why DL would need to stop in Canada for fuel on a flight from Europe w/ a 767. First, why would DL stop in a foreign country unless it was an emergency? Second, Canada is several hours from ATL so there are plenty of divert points (like JFK or BOS where DL has plenty of its own personnel and equipment avaialble). Third, a 767ER has the range to fly 12+ hrs nonstop; STR to even St. John's is a fraction of the useable range of the aircraft.

Show me one day and flight where DL diverted to Canada for fuel and I'll have someone at DL verify if it's real - but I seriously doubt it.

I don't know who on here is a real CO employee but if they say the planes don't divert often, I have to believe them because I don't know. To assert that DL lands in a foreign country (no offense to the Canadians but DL flies the stars and stripes, not the maple leaf) on an airplane that is fully capable of flying the mentioned route nonstop and carrying 10s of thosands of pounds of cargo is just ridiculous.

Now out w/ your "facts" or keep your assertions to yourself.

And while you're at it, tell us when the last CO 757 diverted for fuel and we'll find someone to verify that as well.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 4:18 am

CO has had unscheduled fuel stops on the TXL-EWR route (as well as some of the other 757 transatlantic services).........its not often, probably a handful of times since the TXL-EWR services began. The fuel stops come with the wrong combination of winds, payloads, and weather - but the biggest issue, from what I understand, is ATC matters.

Most of the unplanned stops occured during the busy summer season - full aircraft, but the main problems were lots of delays at EWR including disruptions due to summer thunder storms that would close down the airport. In these cases, the 757s took a fuel stop at Gander to be prepared to deal with the arrival issues in the Newark/NYC area. The 757s leave Europe with more than adequate reserves and enough fuel for a diversion........but they do not have enough fuel after the long transatlantic flight to stay in the air for an extra 1 to 2 hours while arrivals at EWR are backed up and being sorted out. The Gander fuel stops have been rather quick and painless, and from what I have heard, did not create lots of customer problems.....yes, the flight arrived late into EWR, but on the difficult days that the fuel stops occured, EWR was a disaster anyway, with just about all in and outbound flights taking large delays and cancellations.

Back to MUC-EWR, sorry, as pointed out it was the early 90s (not late 80s as I originally posted, got my dates wrong)......and will that route be re-instated.....its not clear, but its no longer a definite no. Is the 752 the correct aircraft for the route - probably not. As for PRG-EWR, as mentioned above, PRG seems to be on CO's radar, CSA dropped service to EWR opening the way for CO to launch the route......but again the 752 could be a problem here. The same applies to Vienna.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 5:11 am

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 14):
I'm well aware that other airlines have such routes as well, e.g. like DL has STR-ATL, which all too often has to refuel in Canada as well.

ATL-STR-ATL is flown on a 767, which has enough range to do it nonstop (unless they fly 763As on the route, which is unlikely). AFAIK, DL doesn't even have ETOPS certified 757s, even if they'd only require ETOPS 138 to cross the Atlantic.
 
DAL767400ER
Posts: 5084
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:47 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 5:12 am

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 17):
Comments like this really shoot your credibility

That comes from just the right person  Yeah sure .

As for the 763ER having a 12+ hour range, big deal, doesn't matter if wheather conditions are unfavorably, and many factors have to be considered:
STR has a 3,345m long runway, and is located some 400m above sealevel. Adding to that is the fact that in the main take-off direction to the west, there is a mountain range that has to be figured into take-off calculations. And this is where the main problem lays. If on a hot day, of which there can be quite a few in Stuttgart, a plane is fully loaded up to the gills with pax and cargo, and at that point, DL has the choice of either leaving cargo or pax behind, or being forced to refuel at some airport. That can be Gander, Halifax, Boston, New York or whereever.
And as to the point of DL only restopping in Canada on emergencies, and them sending everything to BOS or JFK, ever factored in that there might be bad wheather in that area that limits or shuts down flights at said airports?
Don't have to believe me, and I'm sure you won't, but if you feel so inclined, I'd be more than happy to monitor the STR-ATL flights every day and write down all the diversions  Wink .
 
DALelite
Posts: 1318
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 7:00 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 5:21 am

obviously no videos about the arrival ceremony availble, like there was on DL inaguraul flight from ATL to CPH a week ago?

cheers: DALelite
They loved to fly and it showed..
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4328
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 8:54 am

Quoting DALelite (Reply 21):

Well, given the fact that the CO plane will only arrive in CGN in 6 hours, this is not so surprising  Wink

In CGN, everybody is happy about this direct connection to EWR. I hope this route will be a succes, but we will have to wait and see...

Maybe I will be there tomorrow, so if I am, I will give you some pictures.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 8:57 am

DAL764,
please do let me know when you find a flight that you believe has made a fuel stop in Canada and I'll have someone check it out. Generally I have a lot of respect for you but this just doesn't smell right.

On top of JFK and BOS, DL has operations in PWM and still diverts to BGR when necessary, is a large carrier in BDL (flies the 763 there).... there are more than enough options to keep DL from fuel stopping in Canada.

I was in the CVG airport years ago when an AA D10 from FRA to DFW fuel stopped in CVG because AA had a large cargo load. Lo and behold, one of the D10's engines couldn't be started once they got to the runway. AA didn't have D10 maintenance in CVG because they contracted it to TW who didn't fly the D10 and certainly didn't have anyone capable of working on it in CVG. Long and short was that AA cancelled its flight and towed it to DL's int'l facility which at that time could handle 2 flights at a time so AA had to keep their people onboard for 2 hours until the facility was available because INS and Customs didn't want AA's cluster mixed up w/ DL's regular operation. AA ferried the plane empty the following morning to DFW on 2 engines.

Moral of the story: don't divert to an airport where you can't support the aircraft unless you absolutely have to. I think DL understands that lesson because I have never seen them divert an int'l flight to a non-DL city capable of handling the aircraft unless they have to. AA apparently learned the lesson because CVG never got another int'l diversion and AA doesn't divert int'l flights to such small cities for AA unless it's an emergency.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 9:11 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 18):
, PRG seems to be on CO's radar, CSA dropped service to EWR opening the way for CO to launch the route

CSA recently restarted their EWR flight, I think it's 3-4Xs weekly.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 9:16 am

There are rumors that DL wants to start JFKPRG so perhaps OK is restarting EWRPRG to allow DL to do JFKPRG. Since carriers have to agree on the codesharing between carriers, it is possible that OK wouldn't agree to codeshare on CO's service if it competes against their own. PRG is a very small market and would only work w/ codesharing on both ends of the flight. Not sure what CO cities OK codeshares on out of EWR but they have their code on a number of DL's routes out of JFK. Not sure how many cities DL codes on beyond PRG, though there are some logical connections to Eastern Europe where DL is expanding - some of which are to cities DL will not serve.
 
777gk
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2000 3:04 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 10:24 am

Generally, it IS an emergency when an airplane needs to be diverted. We don't just set them down all over the Canadian Maritimes because we like the scenery, more often than not it's because of FAA-imposed flow control programs, especially in the summer.. These restrictions are applied to all arriving traffic in NY airspace; no aircraft type or operator is immune to fuel-related diversions. It happens, and usually does not delay the flight for more than an hour. These are decisions made by the pilot in command to ensure the safety of the persons aboard; be grateful that unnecessary risks are not being taken with your lives without your knowledge. For more on that, see the case study in how not to handle a fuel emergency, Avianca 52 in 1991.
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 11:04 am

when you are critical on fuel, yes you land where you have to. But the Canadian maritimes are a good 2 1/2 to 3 hrs from NYC. It is very rare that the FAA will stop traffic to the point of causing diversions on flights that are 1000 miles from landing. And even on int'l flights, there are weather forecasts that provide the opportunity to prepare for potential landing delays; responsible airlines with enough capacity on the aircraft use their forecasts to add fuel to prevent the possibility of a diversion - or should have calculated the costs should the flight be forced to divert. If you are in a 757 with limited hold time, you may have no choice but the 767 and bigger widebodies certainly have the ability to carry add'l fuel should the forecast indicate it may be necessary. It is an emergency when you do not plan for an event that is very possible to occur - thunderstorms in the summer or fog, rain, or snow in the winter - all of which are predictable hours in advance.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 1184
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 11:27 am

another CO european route flown with a B757? ughhh, I know this has been discussed to death in the past but I wouldnt fly a narrow body that far if the ticket was free. I guess thats one advantage DL has over CO is all those lovely 767-300 ER's they have in there fleet ready for their European expansion.
 
boeingguy1
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:31 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 11:46 am

Quoting Jumbojet (Reply 28):
I guess thats one advantage DL has over CO is all those lovely 767-300 ER's they have in there fleet ready for their European expansion.

Ive got news for ya: most of the American public, which is used to flying on an RJ for 3 hours or a 737 to CA from the East coast (5-6 hrs) will have no problem sitting in a clean, fairly new, comforatable 757 for 6-7 hrs... I havent had a problem, at least!  Smile
"...Gatwick South!? Id rather crash in Brighton!"
 
jumbojet
Posts: 1184
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 11:53 am

Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 29):
Ive got news for ya: most of the American public, which is used to flying on an RJ for 3 hours or a 737 to CA from the East coast (5-6 hrs) will have no problem sitting in a clean, fairly new, comforatable 757 for 6-7 hrs... I havent had a problem, at least!

And I've got news for you. first, what do you consider most of the American public? 2nd, most of the American public flies on RJ's for 3 hours? Let me see the stats on this one or is this just your humble opinion? 3rd, since when does it only take 6 to 7 hours on a flight from Germany to Newark? Now for the news: Glad you havent had a problem on those flights but if you had a choice of a 767 or a 757 I am sure you, like most of the flying American public which you seem to know so well, would take the widebody.
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 3724
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 12:20 pm

For the record..
CO 110 EWR CGN 10May
EWR out 1841hrs E.04
EWR off 1907hrs
CGN eta 0847hrs L.37    Gate D10
Oh, almost forgot ... Ship 138 ....  biggrin 

[Edited 2006-05-11 05:25:17]
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
COfaninBOS
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 12:32 pm

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 12:29 pm

I am sorry Jumbojet, but most of the American public CANNOT find the state of Louisiana on a map. That was a news story based on actual polling from about two weeks ago.

That said, I am fairly certain that 95% of the American public wouldn't know the difference between a 763 and a 752 even if you allowed them to take an open book test!
 
jumbojet
Posts: 1184
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 12:45 pm

Quoting COfaninBOS (Reply 32):
That said, I am fairly certain that 95% of the American public wouldn't know the difference between a 763 and a 752 even if you allowed them to take an open book test

You are 100% correct in that statement. And to add to that statement, nearly 10o% of the worlds population has no clue about www.airliners.net
 
jumbojet
Posts: 1184
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 12:49 pm

Quoting Boeingguy1 (Reply 29):
Ive got news for ya: most of the American public, which is used to flying on an RJ for 3 hours or a 737 to CA from the East coast (5-6 hrs) will have no problem sitting in a clean, fairly new, comforatable 757 for 6-7 hrs... I havent had a problem, at least!

TXL to EWR is listed at 9 hr and 5 min on CO website. Not even close to the 6 to 7 hrs you say above. Nevertheless, I'll take a 767 over a 757 any day of the week when it comes to Transoceanic service. As a matter of fact, doing LGA to DUS on DL tomorrow, cant wait. I choose to fly on Delta even though it meant flying down to ATL first.

[Edited 2006-05-11 05:51:29]
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 2:41 pm

Quoting Jumbojet (Reply 34):
TXL to EWR is listed at 9 hr and 5 min on CO website.

With the tailwinds over the Atlantic, CO.com lists EWR-TXL at 7 hours and 55 minutes, possibly even less during the winter (and in turn a bit longer when going west).  Wink

Quoting Jumbojet (Reply 30):
Glad you havent had a problem on those flights but if you had a choice of a 767 or a 757 I am sure you, like most of the flying American public which you seem to know so well, would take the widebody.

It's all just a matter of subjective preference. Most people (not only Americans) don't even know if an aircraft is a widebody until the board it or see the seatmap on the websites or printed timetables.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 5:27 pm

Quoting Jumbojet (Reply 34):

TXL to EWR is listed at 9 hr and 5 min on CO website. Not even close to the 6 to 7 hrs you say above. Nevertheless, I'll take a 767 over a 757 any day of the week when it comes to Transoceanic service. As a matter of fact, doing LGA to DUS on DL tomorrow, cant wait. I choose to fly on Delta even though it meant flying down to ATL first.

[Edited 2006-05-11 05:51:29]



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 35):

It's all just a matter of subjective preference. Most people (not only Americans) don't even know if an aircraft is a widebody until the board it or see the seatmap on the websites or printed timetables.

The 757 accross the Atlantic thing - again:

1. Most pax will go for a direct flight - regardless of aircraft type (thus, not many pax are going to fly from NYC to Germany via Atlanta - flying 2 hours in the wrong direction and adding 5 to 6 hours to their journey time.) Biz pax especially cannot and will not waste hours of flying simply to fly on a different type of airplane.

2. Fare is a major consideration for choosing a flight itinerary - pax will not pay extra for big airplanes......or any other service, or so it seems.

3. Other factors are schedule, quality, FF miles, airport choice etc - type of aircraft is not a very big factor for pax when selecting flights (except here at a.net).

CO uses the 752 accross the Atlantic because it makes sense - its the plane that makes money on thinner transatlantic routes. There are limitations, and CO realizes them.....but at the end of the story, throusands of pax get on CO 752s each day to cross the Atlantic and are wholly satisfied.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 5:35 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 36):
type of aircraft is not a very big factor for pax when selecting flights (except here at a.net).

The A.net part is too true. Big grin

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 36):
CO uses the 752 accross the Atlantic because it makes sense - its the plane that makes money on thinner transatlantic routes. There are limitations, and CO realizes them.....but at the end of the story, throusands of pax get on CO 752s each day to cross the Atlantic and are wholly satisfied.

Good point, but the thing is that in the end, unless they're A.nutters like us or if they know a bit of aircraft, and those people are not under really tight schedules, they just don't care about it.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 36):
Fare is a major consideration for choosing a flight itinerary - pax will not pay extra for big airplanes......or any other service, or so it seems.

Well, the example with BD downgrading MAN-IAD from A332 to a wetleased 757 should prove us a bit wrong with certain airlines and passengers.  Wink
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 5:42 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 37):

Well, the example with BD downgrading MAN-IAD from A332 to a wetleased 757 should prove us a bit wrong with certain airlines and passengers.

Two things to consider -

1. BMI was going to cut the IAD service anyway - they simply flew the 757 to cover the summer season before the flight was to be dropped, the fact that the service was dropped was not directly due to the 757 on the route.

2. BMI did switch its product - BMI promised its A332s with 3 classes of service and upgraded inflight services, and then swapped out the 757 to the surprise of its (loyal) pax......CO does not advertise that its tranatlantic service are all widebody and then have a 752 pull up to the gate......most loyal CO flyers and other FF realize that some CO transatlantic flights are operated with 752s and no one seems to have a problem with it.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 5:49 pm

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 38):
1. BMI was going to cut the IAD service anyway - they simply flew the 757 to cover the summer season before the flight was to be dropped, the fact that the service was dropped was not directly due to the 757 on the route.

I didn't know that. I was only aware of BD cancelling the route because they shot themselves in the foot with the equipment swap. I presume it was cancelled because of the old story of good loads but horrible yields on the route.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 38):
2. BMI did switch its product - BMI promised its A332s with 3 classes of service and upgraded inflight services, and then swapped out the 757 to the surprise of its (loyal) pax......CO does not advertise that its tranatlantic service are all widebody and then have a 752 pull up to the gate......most loyal CO flyers and other FF realize that some CO transatlantic flights are operated with 752s and no one seems to have a problem with it.

Good point, which makes me wonder how PAX have reacted on BD leasing that Arkefly 767 for a short time because of the A330s having to get major maintenance checks but for the sake of not going too OT, I'll leave that for another topic.  Wink
 
boeingguy1
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:31 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 8:31 pm

Quoting Jumbojet (Reply 30):
767 or a 757 I am sure you, like most of the flying American public which you seem to know so well, would take the widebody.

Please. You know as well as I do that most of the flying public has no idea what the diffrence is between a 767 or 757, except maybe when they actually arrive at the gate- for the Economy passenger, its the same seat, same pitch, etc... CO also has a better reputation for comfort and service compared to that of DL.
"...Gatwick South!? Id rather crash in Brighton!"
 
fhgandi
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 12:28 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 8:41 pm

A warm welcome to "Conti" in CGN!

I have just been at the airport in CGN and saw N13138 coming in on runway 14L.

Terminal 2 was decorated beautifully with balloons, stickers, panels... all indicating Continental and New York.

In the boarding area around today's gate for CO111, catering and extra service arrangements have been presented.

Today, 143 people came to CGN and 122 boarded towards EWR. The J class seats were fully occupied in both directions. Source for both pieces of information: www.cgn-community.de (a German language CGN airport forum).

I hope, as somebody who lives in the CGN area, that this flight will be the successful opener to new markets, as Germanwings did it towards Low-Cost in Fall 2002.
 
DAL767400ER
Posts: 5084
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:47 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 9:19 pm

Quoting Fhgandi (Reply 41):
In the boarding area around today's gate for CO111, catering and extra service arrangements have been presented.

The flight number is 111? Hmm, I can imagine what will be be going on in the departure hall for that flight on November 11th and the departure time has been changed to 11:11am Big grin . "Karneval in 'ner Boeing"
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Thu May 11, 2006 9:22 pm

CO has been flying 757s on Trans-Atlantic flights from EWR for 10 years, they obviously have had success and CO's customers obviously have no problem with the 757.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
DALelite
Posts: 1318
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 7:00 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Fri May 12, 2006 5:41 am

I personally would not like to fly transatlantic on a 757. I even didn't
find it comfortble to fly on the upperdeck of a 747.

DALelite
They loved to fly and it showed..
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 3724
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Fri May 12, 2006 9:13 am

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 42):
can imagine what will be be going on in the departure hall for that flight on November 11th and the departure time has been changed to 11:11am

Perhaps on that day it will also be Ship 111 ..  bouncy 
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Fri May 12, 2006 9:52 am

Quoting STT757 (Reply 43):
CO has been flying 757s on Trans-Atlantic flights from EWR for 10 years, they obviously have had success and CO's customers obviously have no problem with the 757.

Because they have largely been using them to open routes where there was no other transatlantic service. Problem is that other carriers are starting service up against the 757 and things don't look quite so fine. Look at CO's hissy fit over DL RE-entering TXL - w/ a widebody. DL siphons off the cargo revenue and the passengers that prefer a widebody. When everything is identical (and IFE is not a primary purchase driver) despite what some A.net nuts think), then it comes down to comfort. and the 767 is just more comfortable than a 757 in every dimension, perceived and real.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Fri May 12, 2006 10:24 am

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 46):
Look at CO's hissy fit over DL RE-entering TXL - w/ a widebody. DL siphons off the cargo revenue and the passengers that prefer a widebody

DL will drop the route before CO, the operating costs of the 757 can make the route work where it has failed in the past.

Pan Am, Lufthansa, TWA and DL themselves from both JFK and ATL could not get Berlin to work because they were using A310s and 767-300s. CO can make routes like Belfast, Birmingham, Lisbon work because of the economics of the 757s.

DL might fly more passengers from the NYC area to Berlin with their 767-300s, however they will loose money on 210 passengers in a 767-300 and CO will make money with 110 in a 757.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
TokyoNarita
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 5:30 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Fri May 12, 2006 10:26 am

I must agree that the B757s are tight stretch for transatlantic out of EWR....and there is no doubt that B767s offer more comfort. However, let it be known when winter comes around, Continental wins because the B757 fits the winter demand for MANY markets like TXL-EWR and CGN-EWR and operate year around effectively and economically. All of Delta's European expansions on B767s are fine and dandy during the summer but some are not likely to be sustainable in the winter by flying empty seats. Time will tell. If you want a widebody that bad, go through FRA or LGW and take the train or Easyjet. At least with Continental, many secondary cities in Europe are offered a non-stop year around instead of chasing seasonal leisure traffic. There is the real value.

TokyoNarita.

[Edited 2006-05-12 03:48:08]
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13268
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: CO Starts EWR-CGN

Fri May 12, 2006 10:38 am

In 2 or 3 years CO will be flying these beauties,

http://www.jimrvaughan.com/photos2/CAL/787.jpg
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos