alexinwa
Topic Author
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 2:08 pm

Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:59 pm

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???
 
compensateme
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:19 am

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
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 1473
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:53 am

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.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:04 am

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.
 
compensateme
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:55 am

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
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:18 am

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
 
compensateme
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:31 am

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
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:15 am

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
 
rogercamel
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:41 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:56 am

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.
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:38 am

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.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:00 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:47 am

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.
 
mark2fly1034
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:38 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:52 pm

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?
 
richiemo
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:15 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:01 pm

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.
 
panais
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:39 pm

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?
 
vv701
Posts: 5774
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:53 pm

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?
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:42 pm

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.
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:04 pm

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.
 
compensateme
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:05 pm

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
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:45 pm

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.
 
nutsaboutplanes
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:37 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:18 pm

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
 
jporterfi
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:25 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:44 pm

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:05 pm

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.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:13 pm

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
 
compensateme
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:48 pm

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
 
N62NA
Posts: 4006
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:25 am

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?
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:23 am

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:36 am

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!
 
compensateme
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:11 am

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
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:48 am

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:20 am

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:49 am

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
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:10 am

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.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:14 am

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.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:23 am

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.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:06 am

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.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:31 am

Sorry, missed that qualification.

It's ridiculous though. The fact is that wide bodies are designed for longer range than narrow bodies!
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:07 am

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:33 am

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:09 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
compensateme
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:07 pm

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
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:42 pm

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.
 
compensateme
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 6:30 pm

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
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:36 pm

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:18 pm

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.
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2231
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:37 pm

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.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:09 am

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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:33 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:51 pm

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.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Widebodies Vs. Multiple Narrows

Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:02 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ammad, Baidu [Spider], BreninTW, flyingclrs727, Google Adsense [Bot], gregn21, Mikey711MN, pdx, ra132914, RJBingham, The777Man, Yahoo [Bot] and 225 guests