Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4462
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:29 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Boriscenteno wrote:
Why US airlines do not get a330 regional 3000 nm range to serve routes like Miami- Los Angeles Nyc- lax etc is a cheaper airplane and instead of having 4 frequencies in one day they may have only 2 and carry more pax any thoughts?

Am I being mean or do you seem to know next to nothing about the USA? In the USA prople want frequency to fly WHEN their schedule permits it. They do not wait until certain times of day or days of the week to fly. They fly when the funds and opportunities exist. That thinking might work somewhere else but NOT in the USA which is precisely why the A380 would not have worked here. Savy?


You're being mean.

And I don't think hourly service to ORD from LGA (for example) really matters when half the time LGA is experiencing 60 to 90 minute delays due to "Wind" - there goes your hourly schedule out the window. The "business person" that demands frequency can certainly cool his or her heels an additional 30 minutes if the airlines were to go every 90 minutes vs every 60 minutes on some of these routes.And that actually MIGHT help alleviate some of the congestion and chronic delays.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4150
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:31 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
ilovelamp wrote:

Then the OP doesn’t understand the term regional as it applies to any commercial flying in the US. 3000NM is not regional in any country.


A330 Regional is a derated, lighter version of A333. Basically reduced MTOW weight, reduced range (b/c it can carry less fuel), but is "optimized" for high capacity, short to mid haul route.

Saudia was the only airline that took up the offer. The plane itself was clearly targeted at Chinese airlines, but they didn't bite.

Previous thread that would explain everything well:
viewtopic.php?t=1340929

P.S. "Regional" configuration is a pretty common name in APAC region for flights flying within that area. Both CX and SQ call their higher density widebodies (A330 mainly) "Regional Plane".


I suspect it's because many Chinese airlines rotate them for short routes but then fly them out to Europe afterward...better for fleet flexibility, especially with the 242t version. Dreamliners are often deployed the same way. For instance, MF usually does a rotation of XMN-PEK-FOC-JFK-FOC-JFK-FOC-JFK-FOC-PEK-XMN for a B789.

That could indeed be a reason. But I suspect if a SRWB aircrafts can save more fuel then airlines could come up with other ways to improve utilizations and use those SRWB aircrafts on those short routes instead, however as the 33R proposal doesn't seems to save much fuel, airlines are probably using the regular 333s for flexibilities instead
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:35 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
From a yield management point of view I much rather work to fill 2 A320s a couple hours apart than a single A330 departure.

Smaller capacity plane tend to reduce pressure of discounting and are better to deal with things like day of week or seasonality swings.


One A321 every 30 minutes or one A330 every hour. The need for frequency is completely overdrawn in these discussions. When you get to 20 flights a day, a few wide bodies do not destroy frequency. When delays count in hours, frequency is down the drain anyway.


The problem with your theory is that if you’re flying all A330s on that route and you start having yield issues your path to cut capacity is to go every other hour? And now you’re less competitive on that route. The part people miss on the value of more frequencies is that it also gives you an easier path to selective capacity reduction when needed.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:36 pm

N62NA wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Boriscenteno wrote:
Why US airlines do not get a330 regional 3000 nm range to serve routes like Miami- Los Angeles Nyc- lax etc is a cheaper airplane and instead of having 4 frequencies in one day they may have only 2 and carry more pax any thoughts?

Am I being mean or do you seem to know next to nothing about the USA? In the USA prople want frequency to fly WHEN their schedule permits it. They do not wait until certain times of day or days of the week to fly. They fly when the funds and opportunities exist. That thinking might work somewhere else but NOT in the USA which is precisely why the A380 would not have worked here. Savy?


You're being mean.

And I don't think hourly service to ORD from LGA (for example) really matters when half the time LGA is experiencing 60 to 90 minute delays due to "Wind" - there goes your hourly schedule out the window. The "business person" that demands frequency can certainly cool his or her heels an additional 30 minutes if the airlines were to go every 90 minutes vs every 60 minutes on some of these routes.And that actually MIGHT help alleviate some of the congestion and chronic delays.


You’re wrong. For the high yield, last minute passengers booking day trips on that route the hourly service matters a ton.
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4462
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:56 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
N62NA wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Am I being mean or do you seem to know next to nothing about the USA? In the USA prople want frequency to fly WHEN their schedule permits it. They do not wait until certain times of day or days of the week to fly. They fly when the funds and opportunities exist. That thinking might work somewhere else but NOT in the USA which is precisely why the A380 would not have worked here. Savy?


You're being mean.

And I don't think hourly service to ORD from LGA (for example) really matters when half the time LGA is experiencing 60 to 90 minute delays due to "Wind" - there goes your hourly schedule out the window. The "business person" that demands frequency can certainly cool his or her heels an additional 30 minutes if the airlines were to go every 90 minutes vs every 60 minutes on some of these routes.And that actually MIGHT help alleviate some of the congestion and chronic delays.


You’re wrong. For the high yield, last minute passengers booking day trips on that route the hourly service matters a ton.


I'm one of those "high yield, last minute passengers" and I can tell you that waiting an additional 30 minutes per schedule is much more preferable to me than having to sit on the plane waiting for an ATC slot due to "congestion" or waiting for a late arriving inbound plane.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3438
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:55 am

c933103 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Not the reason, as if they wanted they could also install more premium seats on 767


AA was able to remove almost three times the number of Y seats by replacing the 762 than adding 5 more premium seats per aircraft (which would have been the equivalent of the exact percentage of net gain F/J with higher frequency A321). Also the 762s were almost 30 years old and needed to be replaced.


ah sorry could you rearticulate the post?


762 10F + 30J = 40P X 8 flights per day = 320 premium seats per day
32T 10F + 20J = 30P X 12 flights per day = 360 premium seats per day, 12.5% increase

762 128Y X 8 flights per day = 1024Y seats per day
32T 72Y X 12 flights per day = 864Y seats per day, 18.5% decrease

Reconfiguring 762 with 12.5% more P seats would be 5 more. 40 X 12.5% = 5

Y would need to be reduced by 10 seats on 762 or 8.5% to add 5 more P seats.

12 daily 32Ts reduced Y by 18.5% or approx 2.2 times as 762 reconfiguration would have.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4150
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:25 am

afcjets wrote:
c933103 wrote:
afcjets wrote:

AA was able to remove almost three times the number of Y seats by replacing the 762 than adding 5 more premium seats per aircraft (which would have been the equivalent of the exact percentage of net gain F/J with higher frequency A321). Also the 762s were almost 30 years old and needed to be replaced.


ah sorry could you rearticulate the post?


762 10F + 30J = 40P X 8 flights per day = 320 premium seats per day
32T 10F + 20J = 30P X 12 flights per day = 360 premium seats per day, 12.5% increase

762 128Y X 8 flights per day = 1024Y seats per day
32T 72Y X 12 flights per day = 864Y seats per day, 18.5% decrease

Reconfiguring 762 with 12.5% more P seats would be 5 more. 40 X 12.5% = 5

Y would need to be reduced by 10 seats on 762 or 8.5% to add 5 more P seats.

12 daily 32Ts reduced Y by 18.5% or approx 2.2 times as 762 reconfiguration would have.

So you want to say using 762 could result in too many Y seat? Airlines can also refit 762 into having something similar to 10F 42J 107Y which would be even more premium heavy with less Y seat if that is desired, and there are also more different types of widebodies than 762
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3276
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:24 am

When I see the MEX-CUN-MEX airways on Flight radar I want to puke, it looks like a highway, all flown with SA aircraft, and tons of cities in North America are the same for the sake of "frequency", why the government gives you incentives for using a darn electric car, but can't in the case of using bigger aircraft, more efficiently with lower frequency? If Public wants to fly 50X LAX-FJK its ok but make them pay the price of convenience. For me its all a CF of bean counters, Aircraft manufacturers and governments not doing their job. Congestion, delays, and wasted resources are the result of these markets.

Regards
TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:57 am

When I follow the discussion here, why are than USA airlines interested in a 797 that will have the similar effect on frequency as using a A330 regional.
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:00 am

mjoelnir wrote:
When I follow the discussion here, why are than USA airlines interested in a 797 that will have the similar effect on frequency as using a A330 regional.


I think in your question lies the real answer to the whole question:

The A330R is no 1-for-2 narrow-body replacement. That is why it's selling so extremely poor. Airlines go by one thing only and that is numbers. Like all companies which exist to make a profit.

What the passengers want it not relevant as long as it doesn't give you a disadvantage towards your competitors. So reducing halving frequencies from 12 to 8 or so should be no problem as long as you keep the number of frequencies in the major travel times high enough. But to make this possible you would need a widebody that can replace a narrowbody 1 for 2 not only seat- but way more importantly cost-wise. This is why Boeing is struggling to finally offer the 797. The task to make a widebody that efficient is extremely difficult. The 787 and the A330 are both way to heavy for this, because they are made to fly longhaul and ultra longhaul.

If you read the latest interviews with Boeing's CEO Dennis Muilenburg you get a glimpse on how difficult it must be to achieve the per-seat effiency of a 737 with a widebody on the same stage length. The decission on the 797 was no postponed to 2019 and will then get a go or no go, depending on how successful Boeing is with their idea of a NMA plane. And this also tells us why an "A330neo regional" based on a 30 year old design for longhaul travel won't be able to compete with A320s and 737s on costs per seat.

One of the recent interviews here: https://www.industryweek.com/leadership ... iness-case
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4150
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:18 am

CARST wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
When I follow the discussion here, why are than USA airlines interested in a 797 that will have the similar effect on frequency as using a A330 regional.


I think in your question lies the real answer to the whole question:

The A330R is no 1-for-2 narrow-body replacement. That is why it's selling so extremely poor. Airlines go by one thing only and that is numbers. Like all companies which exist to make a profit.

1-for-2 was Airbus's marketing for the A380 jet. And it turns out airlines prefer progressively upgauging their capacity on a route instead of cutting frequency by using 1 plane to replace 2 planes. That's why airlines have difficulties in using A380 jet. If Boeing new jet is to be designed for same concept then it would face same problem.

And 797 won't carry 180×2=360 seats either.

As for why 33R aren't selling, as I said above that's because of minimal cost saving over regular 330.
What the passengers want it not relevant as long as it doesn't give you a disadvantage towards your competitors. So reducing halving frequencies from 12 to 8 or so should be no problem as long as you keep the number of frequencies in the major travel times high enough. But to make this possible you would need a widebody that can replace a narrowbody 1 for 2 not only seat- but way more importantly cost-wise. This is why Boeing is struggling to finally offer the 797. The task to make a widebody that efficient is extremely difficult. The 787 and the A330 are both way to heavy for this, because they are made to fly longhaul and ultra longhaul.

If you read the latest interviews with Boeing's CEO Dennis Muilenburg you get a glimpse on how difficult it must be to achieve the per-seat effiency of a 737 with a widebody on the same stage length. The decission on the 797 was no postponed to 2019 and will then get a go or no go, depending on how successful Boeing is with their idea of a NMA plane. And this also tells us why an "A330neo regional" based on a 30 year old design for longhaul travel won't be able to compete with A320s and 737s on costs per seat.

One of the recent interviews here: https://www.industryweek.com/leadership ... iness-case

Then there comes a few questions:
1. Why Boeing isn't making a new narrowbody instead?
2. If for double capacity the CASM is only roughly the same as an aircraft with half that capacity, then how many airlines in the world other than those few airlines that actually operates out of level 3 slot constrained airports would be interested in the aircraft?
As for A330, I think what should be recognized is that despite being a 30 years old aircraft with all the structures for long haul flights, airlines do still use them on short haul, just not dedicatedly buying the short range edition
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:07 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
From a yield management point of view I much rather work to fill 2 A320s a couple hours apart than a single A330 departure.

Smaller capacity plane tend to reduce pressure of discounting and are better to deal with things like day of week or seasonality swings.


One A321 every 30 minutes or one A330 every hour. The need for frequency is completely overdrawn in these discussions. When you get to 20 flights a day, a few wide bodies do not destroy frequency. When delays count in hours, frequency is down the drain anyway.


The problem with your theory is that if you’re flying all A330s on that route and you start having yield issues your path to cut capacity is to go every other hour? And now you’re less competitive on that route. The part people miss on the value of more frequencies is that it also gives you an easier path to selective capacity reduction when needed.


As we are talking about BIG airlines here with hundreds of frames of many different sizes, substitution by a smaller frame for a few flights, should pose no big problem.
And to cut capacity you could go from every hour to every 70 minutes. In an environment, where delays easily beat frequency, I have little understanding for the argument.

All this airlines interested in the 797, should than see no possibility to use such a frame domestically, if your theory is right. I just have the feeling that in this argumentation any wide body Airbus frame will always be to big.
 
User avatar
CARST
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:15 am

c933103 wrote:
1-for-2 was Airbus's marketing for the A380 jet. And it turns out airlines prefer progressively upgauging their capacity on a route instead of cutting frequency by using 1 plane to replace 2 planes. That's why airlines have difficulties in using A380 jet. If Boeing new jet is to be designed for same concept then it would face same problem.

And 797 won't carry 180×2=360 seats either.


You are right. But Boeing's CEO is talking about two sizes. One "bigger one" with a short range" and "a shorter one" with a long range. Whatever these means in exact numbers. (My guess: short one, 220-230 seats, 3800nm for thin TATL routes, long one 270-280 seats with 2800nm range for US Transcon / Asia Regional type routes).

And the 270-280 seater would be two times the capacity of the 737-700 or A319. (Not of the larger 738/739/A320/A321.)

c933103 wrote:
Then there comes a few questions:
1. Why Boeing isn't making a new narrowbody instead?
2. If for double capacity the CASM is only roughly the same as an aircraft with half that capacity, then how many airlines in the world other than those few airlines that actually operates out of level 3 slot constrained airports would be interested in the aircraft?


1) I think Boeing is evaluating exactly this question. Everyone knows that the major airports are slot constrained and the air space over certain areas is "full". And also the airlines hope to save money by reducing frequency on certain routes. So if (big "if") can come up with a 797 widebody, which is more effiecient than two (or 1.5) narrowbodies, than they will go ahead with it and the airlines will buy it. If Boeing can't do it, they might start developing the successor to the 737 sooner than later, because the A321(LR) is still eating the 737s cake on the larger end, while the C-Series and E2 take away the market of the 737-7.
2) You question implies that a theoretical 797 will have the same CASM as a 737. That is impossible. That is why Boeing hasn't launched the 797. Here we are, here we have been a year ago and things won't change in the near future. Just looking at the floorplan of a small widebody versus a large narrowbody will tell you that you loose a lot of efficiency there. Also many costs scale up 1 to 1 with the number of seats. You still need 1 FA per 50 seats for example. You only need one flightdeck crew, but you need more ground staff, you need a bigger tug, you pay higher airport fees and so on. The idea is to make this 797 just as efficient as two 737s, getting down to the same CASM or "a little bit better", whatever that means exactly. And then save on one airport slot, one task for the ground handlers, the dispatcher, etc....

So my view on this is that Boeing is "again" (after the 787 program) planning something at the edge of the possible technology. They might be the huge winner if it works out, but they are also risking a lot by taking their time and facing a possibility to not succeed and then having to go for the "new narrowbody".
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4150
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 11:40 am

CARST wrote:
[
c933103 wrote:
2. If for double capacity the CASM is only roughly the same as an aircraft with half that capacity, then how many airlines in the world other than those few airlines that actually operates out of level 3 slot constrained airports would be interested in the aircraft?


2) You question implies that a theoretical 797 will have the same CASM as a 737. That is impossible. That is why Boeing hasn't launched the 797. Here we are, here we have been a year ago and things won't change in the near future. Just looking at the floorplan of a small widebody versus a large narrowbody will tell you that you loose a lot of efficiency there. Also many costs scale up 1 to 1 with the number of seats. You still need 1 FA per 50 seats for example. You only need one flightdeck crew, but you need more ground staff, you need a bigger tug, you pay higher airport fees and so on. The idea is to make this 797 just as efficient as two 737s, getting down to the same CASM or "a little bit better", whatever that means exactly. And then save on one airport slot, one task for the ground handlers, the dispatcher, etc....

What I mean is that, *even if* Boeing are really able to get the proposed NMA's CASM down to 737 MAX level, it would still be a rather niche aircraft, as:
1. There would be no reason for airlines operating out of airports without, or with little, slot constrains to upgauge many of their flights to NMA
2. Most airlines will probably start receiving their NMA at around 2026-2028 if the plan go through. At that point MAX/neo are already a decade old and next generation NB should be coming soon which will again offer efficiencies unrivalled by NMA
3. A reason why A380 is dying is because its CASM can be closely matched by smaller aircrafts nowadays. If the 797 is only going to be able to be on par with 737MAX in term of CASM then its fate could be like A380 from the start of the project.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:25 pm

People make it a simple argument crying frequency when a bigger frame is mentioned. It is not that simple. If there are 20 daily flights between two airports, a little more or less frequency does not matter. So one has to go a little deeper. There comes cost. The cost of flying one A330R instead of perhaps two A320 or 737-800 is a bit overdrawn here. On shorter trips fuel burn gets a smaller part of the cost situation. One big frame does use half the number of pilots, perhaps lower landing and on the way cost, what does one big gate cost instead of two small ones. MTOW of the 330R should be about 200t. The calculation gets a bit more complicated. Mentioning the 767 does not cut it, apart from being cheap when written off, the CASM is higher on a 767-300ER than an A330-300.
The main reason for not seeing the A330R in the USA is, that there are still enough 767-300 around. But they get old. If Boeing waits to long with the 797, I can well imagine, that an few A330R will make it to the USA. In Asia the A330 has been a no brainer.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:29 pm

So when did the NMA become some sort of US domestic-exclusive widebody again? They are intended as 757/767/A330ceo replacements, and a small, small minority of that fleet is exclusively flogged on intercontinental routes. Using the A330 regional as a proxy makes no sense whatsoever.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:30 pm

N62NA wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
N62NA wrote:

You're being mean.

And I don't think hourly service to ORD from LGA (for example) really matters when half the time LGA is experiencing 60 to 90 minute delays due to "Wind" - there goes your hourly schedule out the window. The "business person" that demands frequency can certainly cool his or her heels an additional 30 minutes if the airlines were to go every 90 minutes vs every 60 minutes on some of these routes.And that actually MIGHT help alleviate some of the congestion and chronic delays.


You’re wrong. For the high yield, last minute passengers booking day trips on that route the hourly service matters a ton.


I'm one of those "high yield, last minute passengers" and I can tell you that waiting an additional 30 minutes per schedule is much more preferable to me than having to sit on the plane waiting for an ATC slot due to "congestion" or waiting for a late arriving inbound plane.


I am too and I can tell you if one airline flies the Rout 5-6 times a day and the other flies it 15, I’m choosing the latter.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 1990
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:47 pm

AM is not a unit of Delta.

Yes DL has 36% stake in AM, but they don’t own them nor is AM apart of DL Group.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4137
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:02 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
N62NA wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

You’re wrong. For the high yield, last minute passengers booking day trips on that route the hourly service matters a ton.


I'm one of those "high yield, last minute passengers" and I can tell you that waiting an additional 30 minutes per schedule is much more preferable to me than having to sit on the plane waiting for an ATC slot due to "congestion" or waiting for a late arriving inbound plane.


I am too and I can tell you if one airline flies the Rout 5-6 times a day and the other flies it 15, I’m choosing the latter.

And that's - with all due respect - what I do not understand:

Yes, five options would be great: let's say two in the morning, one at noon and two different options in the evening.
But 15 or even 20 as described above?!?! What's the point in having so many alternatives?

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. Maybe it's due to my job and the locations I have to travel to. I can be happy if they offer a daily connection...

Newbiepilot wrote:
Flexibility and cost. UA and DL have or have had domestic widebodies. US airlines are quite Capital conservative for domestic fleet. It is hard to justify the expense of a new widebody that may be triple the cost of a narrowbody for domestic use.

I guess that's one of the best explanations. Whenever this topic gets started on a.net some members will answer prayer-mill-like "because US-American passenger prefer "frequency". Since when do airlines do what the passengers want...?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10508
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:12 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

As we are talking about BIG airlines here with hundreds of frames of many different sizes, substitution by a smaller frame for a few flights, should pose no big problem.
And to cut capacity you could go from every hour to every 70 minutes. In an environment, where delays easily beat frequency, I have little understanding for the argument.

All this airlines interested in the 797, should than see no possibility to use such a frame domestically, if your theory is right. I just have the feeling that in this argumentation any wide body Airbus frame will always be to big.


Of course for you this is an Airbus vs Boeing thread because you turn them all into that topic. Trolls just need to troll right?


When the same guys argue on the 797 thread for 797 for USA airlines and than provide on an A330 thread the arguments against an A330 that would also exclude a 797. Than my understanding is clearly that a Boeing wide body would work where an Airbus wide body would not work.
If everything is frequency, you do not need an 797 either. And one has to be deaf and blind to not realise that.

If you can not argument, you attack other posters, nice going. Troll.

Most people advocating the 797 for US airlines are not talking about getting them for primarily domestic use...

UA, DL, AA all have or had large 767 fleets. Most are not used domestically except for a few flights here or there. UA reconfigured their domestic 763s into an international configuration. AA replaced heir domestic 767s with A321s. DL is replacing (replaced? They only have a couple left at most) their domestic 767 with 739/A321s.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:21 pm

Back in the 1990s DL and UA put new build 767s into a domestic configuration. That is back in the late 1990s in the dot.com boom when Airlines spent wildly. Nowadays there is just too much capital tied up with doing that. UA prefers reconfiguring old low value 777s for domestic use.

I think this is where the term widebody with narrowbody economics comes from for them NMA. High density widebodies already are competitive on CASM when ownership costs are excluded. The problem is they are on a higher pricing curve and ownership costs become unfavorable for widebodies to the point that multiple narrowbodies makes sense. Getting the NMA priced in line with narrowbody pricing is the key to tapping into the domestic market.

To help explain, there is basically a linear relationship with seat-count and payload versus price. The higher the seat count or payload, the more expensive the plane and more airlines are willing to pay. This is why the manufacturers have little interest selling A319s or 737-7s and are pushing the airlines to bigger versions that cost more and have higher profit margins. This undercuts the price that Airbus can change for regional A330s and is why defatted versions are almost never economically viable.

There is a step change between the pricing curves for the 737/A320 families to the A330/787. There is a jump up somewhere around $20 Million once Airlines get into widebodies. This isn’t a big deal for airlines that have easy access to capital and financing. For those airlines using A330s or 787s on regional flights isn’t a problem since the cost of capital is low. For the US airlines, they are very cost conscious with their 700+ airplane fleets. The A330 regional is simply too expensive to make work. This is what the NMA is trying to exploit. If they can price the plane like a stretched A321/737 then the market will eat it up.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:45 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

Of course for you this is an Airbus vs Boeing thread because you turn them all into that topic. Trolls just need to troll right?


When the same guys argue on the 797 thread for 797 for USA airlines and than provide on an A330 thread the arguments against an A330 that would also exclude a 797. Than my understanding is clearly that a Boeing wide body would work where an Airbus wide body would not work.
If everything is frequency, you do not need an 797 either. And one has to be deaf and blind to not realise that.

If you can not argument, you attack other posters, nice going. Troll.

Most people advocating the 797 for US airlines are not talking about getting them for primarily domestic use...

UA, DL, AA all have or had large 767 fleets. Most are not used domestically except for a few flights here or there. UA reconfigured their domestic 763s into an international configuration. AA replaced heir domestic 767s with A321s. DL is replacing (replaced? They only have a couple left at most) their domestic 767 with 739/A321s.


For what than??????? A short haul wide body, without space or payload for freight, makes only sense as a domestic wide body. Yes there is talked about two versions, the smaller one could have the range for TATL, again with minimum freight, but the bigger shorter ranged one makes only sense domestic.

Most people promoting the 797 do not talk about a frame matching the 767-300ER, but about a frame offering a range right above the A321LR, or similar to a plain 767-300.
 
estorilm
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:47 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
Wish we could get some domestic widebodies at IAD again.

I'll never forget maybe 10 years ago or so, I looked at my itinerary and saw a UA 777 for my evening IAD-DEN (I think?) flight! I was totally shocked as the planes were still "cool" back then, and almost exclusively international. It was fun because I hadn't been on a 777 since I was a kid when they first launched with the IAD to Heathrow flights, and those weird flip-up IFE things on the sides of the seats haha.

Anyways that thing was configured as a "people mover" for sure, and was pretty loud and cramped.. plane was already showing some age as well. I can see how the route would make sense though.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:55 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Back in the 1990s DL and UA put new build 767s into a domestic configuration. That is back in the late 1990s in the dot.com boom when Airlines spent wildly. Nowadays there is just too much capital tied up with doing that. UA prefers reconfiguring old low value 777s for domestic use.

I think this is where the term widebody with narrowbody economics comes from for them NMA. High density widebodies already are competitive on CASM when ownership costs are excluded. The problem is they are on a higher pricing curve and ownership costs become unfavorable for widebodies to the point that multiple narrowbodies makes sense. Getting the NMA priced in line with narrowbody pricing is the key to tapping into the domestic market.

To help explain, there is basically a linear relationship with seat-count and payload versus price. The higher the seat count or payload, the more expensive the plane and more airlines are willing to pay. This is why the manufacturers have little interest selling A319s or 737-7s and are pushing the airlines to bigger versions that cost more and have higher profit margins. This undercuts the price that Airbus can change for regional A330s and is why defatted versions are almost never economically viable.

There is a step change between the pricing curves for the 737/A320 families to the A330/787. There is a jump up somewhere around $20 Million once Airlines get into widebodies. This isn’t a big deal for airlines that have easy access to capital and financing. For those airlines using A330s or 787s on regional flights isn’t a problem since the cost of capital is low. For the US airlines, they are very cost conscious with their 700+ airplane fleets. The A330 regional is simply too expensive to make work. This is what the NMA is trying to exploit. If they can price the plane like a stretched A321/737 then the market will eat it up.


Than people should stop talking about frequency, frequency and again frequency. The frequency argument, even on TATL, kills both the A330 and the 797 ideas.

Everybody knows by now that the price of a 797 will not match the price of a stretched A321. It will perhaps match the price per seat, but that we do see on an A330 regional.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10508
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:59 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

When the same guys argue on the 797 thread for 797 for USA airlines and than provide on an A330 thread the arguments against an A330 that would also exclude a 797. Than my understanding is clearly that a Boeing wide body would work where an Airbus wide body would not work.
If everything is frequency, you do not need an 797 either. And one has to be deaf and blind to not realise that.

If you can not argument, you attack other posters, nice going. Troll.

Most people advocating the 797 for US airlines are not talking about getting them for primarily domestic use...

UA, DL, AA all have or had large 767 fleets. Most are not used domestically except for a few flights here or there. UA reconfigured their domestic 763s into an international configuration. AA replaced heir domestic 767s with A321s. DL is replacing (replaced? They only have a couple left at most) their domestic 767 with 739/A321s.


For what than??????? A short haul wide body, without space or payload for freight, makes only sense as a domestic wide body. Yes there is talked about two versions, the smaller one could have the range for TATL, again with minimum freight, but the bigger shorter ranged one makes only sense domestic.

Most people promoting the 797 do not talk about a frame matching the 767-300ER, but about a frame offering a range right above the A321LR, or similar to a plain 767-300.

Actually most people promoting the 797 are talking about 4500-5000 range. Which is plenty capable for replacing many TATL flights. You are basically suggesting that the A321LR is useless as well. I mean who would want to fly a plane with no space or payload for cargo 4000nm???? Do you really think airlines put that much stock into whether the plane is narrowbody or a twin aisle when determining whether it will work well in their fleet? They look at the overall numbers.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:02 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
So when did the NMA become some sort of US domestic-exclusive widebody again? They are intended as 757/767/A330ceo replacements, and a small, small minority of that fleet is exclusively flogged on intercontinental routes. Using the A330 regional as a proxy makes no sense whatsoever.


Not for Boeing fans. Either USA airliners need a bigger domestic frame or not.


:roll: Boeing fans certainly aren't the ones that are making out the NMA as if it's as restricted as the A330 regiona, and that it's only good for domestic.


I do not see that. If the range of the smaller 797 is about 5000 nm and 4500nm on the bigger one, to keep size and price under control, you are absolute in the area of the A330R. The 797 than would also not have the possibility to go without freight to stretch the range, because that range is also calculated for passenger and bags, as it should not be able to carry freight to keep it lite and the price down.

The talk was about SW would need some 797 and more domestic you can not get.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:02 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
So when did the NMA become some sort of US domestic-exclusive widebody again? They are intended as 757/767/A330ceo replacements, and a small, small minority of that fleet is exclusively flogged on intercontinental routes. Using the A330 regional as a proxy makes no sense whatsoever.


Not for Boeing fans. Either USA airliners need a bigger domestic frame or not.


:roll: Boeing fans certainly aren't the ones that are making out the NMA as if it's as restricted as the A330 regionals, and that it's only good for domestic use. It might be hard for your questionable intellect to understand, but many widebodies, in the US or otherwise, are rotated from domestic to international (short haul to long haul) all the time, it's certainly not a one-or-the-other use case.
Last edited by JustSomeDood on Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 2:23 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
JustSomeDood wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

Not for Boeing fans. Either USA airliners need a bigger domestic frame or not.


:roll: Boeing fans certainly aren't the ones that are making out the NMA as if it's as restricted as the A330 regiona, and that it's only good for domestic.


I do not see that. If the range of the smaller 797 is about 5000 nm and 4500nm on the bigger one, to keep size and price under control, you are absolute in the area of the A330R. The 797 than would also not have the possibility to go without freight to stretch the range, because that range is also calculated for passenger and bags, as it should not be able to carry freight to keep it lite and the price down.

The talk was about SW would need some 797 and more domestic you can not get.


Only in your deluded mind does ~4500-5500nm ~= 2700nm range. If the A330 regional "actually" has 797 range like for like, Asian airlines would have given a shit about it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:37 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
Most people advocating the 797 for US airlines are not talking about getting them for primarily domestic use...

UA, DL, AA all have or had large 767 fleets. Most are not used domestically except for a few flights here or there. UA reconfigured their domestic 763s into an international configuration. AA replaced heir domestic 767s with A321s. DL is replacing (replaced? They only have a couple left at most) their domestic 767 with 739/A321s.


For what than??????? A short haul wide body, without space or payload for freight, makes only sense as a domestic wide body. Yes there is talked about two versions, the smaller one could have the range for TATL, again with minimum freight, but the bigger shorter ranged one makes only sense domestic.

Most people promoting the 797 do not talk about a frame matching the 767-300ER, but about a frame offering a range right above the A321LR, or similar to a plain 767-300.

Actually most people promoting the 797 are talking about 4500-5000 range. Which is plenty capable for replacing many TATL flights. You are basically suggesting that the A321LR is useless as well. I mean who would want to fly a plane with no space or payload for cargo 4000nm???? Do you really think airlines put that much stock into whether the plane is narrowbody or a twin aisle when determining whether it will work well in their fleet? They look at the overall numbers.


TATL from the east coast, that is it. The A321LR means no cargo and an airline like LH looks at it being to short legged for TATL. If the only use for the 797 would be TATL you do not need it. That 4500 to 5000 nm and no cargo does not originate with me, I just repeat what the tenor is. The A321LR does 4000 nm pax and bags no cargo. What do you call right above it? I call 4500nm right above it.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 596
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 4:01 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
They want more frequencies, not fewer. AA is operating 102-seat A321Ts 12x this coming Monday. Southwest has 20x DAL-HOU.


Nothing to do with frequency IMO. AA decided to go the ultra-premium route on transcon. It's their business choice, nothing more.

As for WN's DAL-HOU - you can go look at a similar route in Asia, KUL-SIN. Mostly 738 on MH and MI (along with 320s for AK) nowaday. Of the 40+ flights between the two, SQ only operate 3 (all widebodies, of course). Add in a few fifth freedom (i.e. ET) here and there, it's still maybe 4-5 widebodies a day.

Back to LAX-JFK. If you look at DL, they fly plenty of 763s/764s (with some 752 mixed in) on the route. UA uses domestic 777 (along with 752s) on LAX-EWR and SFO-EWR.

As for why US airline don't bother getting A330 regional - they already got plenty of larger mid-range aircraft, namely, 767, that are fully paid for, and can fly for awhile. In addition, those 763 can fly a transcon, then fly across the pond. Not something that you can do for a A330 regional. And even over in APAC, which is A330 regional's main target market, you're seeing airlines (mainly CN3) buying way more NBs (A321 being the big one) rather than widebodies nowaday.


CAAC rules out the number of widebody and narrowbody for major China airline
For example, China Eastern can INCREASE 29 aircraft with more than 250seat and 204 aircrafts with 100-200 seat between 2014 and 2018

Image
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10508
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 4:17 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

For what than??????? A short haul wide body, without space or payload for freight, makes only sense as a domestic wide body. Yes there is talked about two versions, the smaller one could have the range for TATL, again with minimum freight, but the bigger shorter ranged one makes only sense domestic.

Most people promoting the 797 do not talk about a frame matching the 767-300ER, but about a frame offering a range right above the A321LR, or similar to a plain 767-300.

Actually most people promoting the 797 are talking about 4500-5000 range. Which is plenty capable for replacing many TATL flights. You are basically suggesting that the A321LR is useless as well. I mean who would want to fly a plane with no space or payload for cargo 4000nm???? Do you really think airlines put that much stock into whether the plane is narrowbody or a twin aisle when determining whether it will work well in their fleet? They look at the overall numbers.


TATL from the east coast, that is it. The A321LR means no cargo and an airline like LH looks at it being to short legged for TATL. If the only use for the 797 would be TATL you do not need it. That 4500 to 5000 nm and no cargo does not originate with me, I just repeat what the tenor is. The A321LR does 4000 nm pax and bags no cargo. What do you call right above it? I call 4500nm right above it.

Why? Because you said so? Keep in mind it is the North American and European airlines that are pushing for the aircraft to have less cargo. Cargo is not that lucrative across the Atlantic.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:47 pm

N14AZ wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
N62NA wrote:

I'm one of those "high yield, last minute passengers" and I can tell you that waiting an additional 30 minutes per schedule is much more preferable to me than having to sit on the plane waiting for an ATC slot due to "congestion" or waiting for a late arriving inbound plane.


I am too and I can tell you if one airline flies the Rout 5-6 times a day and the other flies it 15, I’m choosing the latter.

And that's - with all due respect - what I do not understand:

Yes, five options would be great: let's say two in the morning, one at noon and two different options in the evening.
But 15 or even 20 as described above?!?! What's the point in having so many alternatives?

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. Maybe it's due to my job and the locations I have to travel to. I can be happy if they offer a daily connection...

Newbiepilot wrote:
Flexibility and cost. UA and DL have or have had domestic widebodies. US airlines are quite Capital conservative for domestic fleet. It is hard to justify the expense of a new widebody that may be triple the cost of a narrowbody for domestic use.

I guess that's one of the best explanations. Whenever this topic gets started on a.net some members will answer prayer-mill-like "because US-American passenger prefer "frequency". Since when do airlines do what the passengers want...?


For me it’s all about my time w family. Travel ranging around 75-175k/miles a year over a couple decades and if I can race to the airport and get home an hour early or 30 mins earlier I’ll take it. If one airline has a 5 pm and a 9 pm and the other has 1-2 per hour I have a much better chance of getting home for dinner or bed times.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:53 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Back in the 1990s DL and UA put new build 767s into a domestic configuration. That is back in the late 1990s in the dot.com boom when Airlines spent wildly. Nowadays there is just too much capital tied up with doing that. UA prefers reconfiguring old low value 777s for domestic use.

I think this is where the term widebody with narrowbody economics comes from for them NMA. High density widebodies already are competitive on CASM when ownership costs are excluded. The problem is they are on a higher pricing curve and ownership costs become unfavorable for widebodies to the point that multiple narrowbodies makes sense. Getting the NMA priced in line with narrowbody pricing is the key to tapping into the domestic market.

To help explain, there is basically a linear relationship with seat-count and payload versus price. The higher the seat count or payload, the more expensive the plane and more airlines are willing to pay. This is why the manufacturers have little interest selling A319s or 737-7s and are pushing the airlines to bigger versions that cost more and have higher profit margins. This undercuts the price that Airbus can change for regional A330s and is why defatted versions are almost never economically viable.

There is a step change between the pricing curves for the 737/A320 families to the A330/787. There is a jump up somewhere around $20 Million once Airlines get into widebodies. This isn’t a big deal for airlines that have easy access to capital and financing. For those airlines using A330s or 787s on regional flights isn’t a problem since the cost of capital is low. For the US airlines, they are very cost conscious with their 700+ airplane fleets. The A330 regional is simply too expensive to make work. This is what the NMA is trying to exploit. If they can price the plane like a stretched A321/737 then the market will eat it up.


Than people should stop talking about frequency, frequency and again frequency. The frequency argument, even on TATL, kills both the A330 and the 797 ideas.

Everybody knows by now that the price of a 797 will not match the price of a stretched A321. It will perhaps match the price per seat, but that we do see on an A330 regional.


You apparently have facts about an airliner no one else has hard data on. Good thing your made up facts suit your made up argument.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:53 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Back in the 1990s DL and UA put new build 767s into a domestic configuration. That is back in the late 1990s in the dot.com boom when Airlines spent wildly. Nowadays there is just too much capital tied up with doing that. UA prefers reconfiguring old low value 777s for domestic use.

I think this is where the term widebody with narrowbody economics comes from for them NMA. High density widebodies already are competitive on CASM when ownership costs are excluded. The problem is they are on a higher pricing curve and ownership costs become unfavorable for widebodies to the point that multiple narrowbodies makes sense. Getting the NMA priced in line with narrowbody pricing is the key to tapping into the domestic market.

To help explain, there is basically a linear relationship with seat-count and payload versus price. The higher the seat count or payload, the more expensive the plane and more airlines are willing to pay. This is why the manufacturers have little interest selling A319s or 737-7s and are pushing the airlines to bigger versions that cost more and have higher profit margins. This undercuts the price that Airbus can change for regional A330s and is why defatted versions are almost never economically viable.

There is a step change between the pricing curves for the 737/A320 families to the A330/787. There is a jump up somewhere around $20 Million once Airlines get into widebodies. This isn’t a big deal for airlines that have easy access to capital and financing. For those airlines using A330s or 787s on regional flights isn’t a problem since the cost of capital is low. For the US airlines, they are very cost conscious with their 700+ airplane fleets. The A330 regional is simply too expensive to make work. This is what the NMA is trying to exploit. If they can price the plane like a stretched A321/737 then the market will eat it up.


Than people should stop talking about frequency, frequency and again frequency. The frequency argument, even on TATL, kills both the A330 and the 797 ideas.

Everybody knows by now that the price of a 797 will not match the price of a stretched A321. It will perhaps match the price per seat, but that we do see on an A330 regional.


You apparently have facts about an airliner no one else has hard data on. Good thing your made up facts suit your made up argument.
 
Swadian
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:02 pm

RobertPhoenix wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
They want more frequencies, not fewer. AA is operating 102-seat A321Ts 12x this coming Monday. Southwest has 20x DAL-HOU.


Many passengers certainly appreciate more frequent flights but there must come a point where they are so frequent that nobody cares. I suspect that nobody would care if Southwest only had a flight every hour during the normal day for DAL to HOU. In Southwest's case they get economies by limiting the types of aircraft they have, so running 20 instead of 12 or 15 (with higher capacity) on that route costs much less than introducing a new type of aircraft.

However, there are many types of passengers. Those travelling on business will typically appreciate frequency, and those can be high yielding passengers. So it seems that BA for instance uses smaller aircraft than it has available on the LHR JFK route. However, even in those cases I suspect there are a limited number of favorite times.

Perhaps more people will choose the most economical flight so I'm slightly surprised that there aren't more airlines using bigger aircraft with lower CASM with reduced frequency on popular routes. For myself, making the flight from PHX to any airport in the DC area I really don't care what time the flight departs. I'm going to lose most of the day regardless.


Except that big, heavy, and fat widebody aircraft burn so much fuel during takeoff that they often do not have lower CASM on shorter flights than a more optimized A321. Asian airlines use them due to slot restrictions, not due to CASM, and even then they don't use them very often, since the CN3 did not order A330R.

afcjets wrote:
crownvic wrote:
Samrnpage wrote:
Ive wondered this as well, I think its profit based than anything else. You get A330s/777s used in Asia on high demand domestic routes all the time, however I think you can make more profit filling a A321 99% 8 times a day vs a A330 80% 4 times a day.


Yes, don't let the dishonest airlines think they are appeasing the traveling public with more frequencies. It is nothing more than it being bean counter profit driven. At the same time, they could care less how much they clog the skies with all these narrow-bodies, which in turn adds to delays. The FAA/DOT have been way too lax in allowing airlines to pile on frequencies, in the sake of profits. It is insane how many narrow-body flights are operating trans-cons today where the skies could be much less packed with more wide-body types, with less frequencies. I doubt it will ever change though.


If that’s the case it’s not the airlines fault. Boeing and Airbus should have shorter range widebodies which achieve economies of scale instead of the opposite.


They tried, but it always failed because even an A330 is too big, heavy, and fat to offer lower CASM on a short flight than an A321. So far the 797 is still on paper.

zakuivcustom wrote:
ilovelamp wrote:
c933103 wrote:
The thread is talking about a plane variant with regional in its name, not American regional flight market


Then the OP doesn’t understand the term regional as it applies to any commercial flying in the US. 3000NM is not regional in any country.


A330 Regional is a derated, lighter version of A333. Basically reduced MTOW weight, reduced range (b/c it can carry less fuel), but is "optimized" for high capacity, short to mid haul route.

Saudia was the only airline that took up the offer. The plane itself was clearly targeted at Chinese airlines, but they didn't bite.

Previous thread that would explain everything well:
viewtopic.php?t=1340929

P.S. "Regional" configuration is a pretty common name in APAC region for flights flying within that area. Both CX and SQ call their higher density widebodies (A330 mainly) "Regional Plane".


Well, if the CN3 didn't even bite I have no clue why people think the US3 are going to bite.

zakuivcustom wrote:
Revelation wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
The reality is the A321NEO and A220-300 carry a passenger for less.

Indeed. A330R is just a paper de-rate. It still carries the heavy landing gear and reinforced wings needed to carry loads of fuel that won't be needed on a domestic milk run, so it's cost per seat is going to be high. Then, add in the capacity risk and the bean counters get shivers.

People here are over-rating the relatively tiny number of domestic widebody flights in the US. They're largely being done with international aircraft with spare time on their hands or re-purposed elderly international aircraft no longer fit for international service. Compare/contrast to the large number of A321s, 739s, and soon 7310s the big three operate. It's no contest.


Another side note I want to make - the thing that's seems to be even more overrated on a.net, IMO, is the amount of widebodies that's suppose to be flying domestic routes in mainland China. Even over in China, with its supposed crowded airspace, you have maybe 5-6 routes (PEK-SHA, PEK-CAN, PEK-SZX, SHA-CAN, SHA-SZX, PEK-CTU) that seems numerous A330s. All the other routes at best are like US domestic routes - i.e. 1-2 widebodies out of 15 daily flights. Even if you included HKG, you can add HKG-PEK and HKG-SHA (or PVG) and that's it.


That's a good point.

onlyboeing wrote:
I live in both NYC and LA, so I take those transcons all the time. Frequency is great, because you can just head to the airport right after work, or head straight to work after coming off your flight. It's what most people prefer, at least out here.

As for replacing all the narrowbody frequency for widebodies, here's the thing. New York and LA are the two largest cities in America. The two largest economies in the country. Basically, if a widebody is going to replace a narrowbody, there's still going to be frequency. So instead of 10x daily on a 737/757, you're going to see 8x daily on a 767/A330. There's just so much demand for flights these days. In fact, it's what we're starting to see now, at least in the case of the transcons. UA adding 777 and 767s. Delta with the 767s and A330s. AA currently sticks with the A321, which is an extremely nice ride. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw one of their 77Ws, 787, or A330 on the route one of these days.


I don't think they'll put heavies on the JFK-LAX because the 763 and A333 are getting retired and they need as many heavies as they have without buying more to overload debt.

c933103 wrote:
afcjets wrote:
c933103 wrote:

ah sorry could you rearticulate the post?


762 10F + 30J = 40P X 8 flights per day = 320 premium seats per day
32T 10F + 20J = 30P X 12 flights per day = 360 premium seats per day, 12.5% increase

762 128Y X 8 flights per day = 1024Y seats per day
32T 72Y X 12 flights per day = 864Y seats per day, 18.5% decrease

Reconfiguring 762 with 12.5% more P seats would be 5 more. 40 X 12.5% = 5

Y would need to be reduced by 10 seats on 762 or 8.5% to add 5 more P seats.

12 daily 32Ts reduced Y by 18.5% or approx 2.2 times as 762 reconfiguration would have.

So you want to say using 762 could result in too many Y seat? Airlines can also refit 762 into having something similar to 10F 42J 107Y which would be even more premium heavy with less Y seat if that is desired, and there are also more different types of widebodies than 762


Except you're missing that the 762 is inefficient. It burns almost as much fuel as a 763 but carries barely any more than A321, and AA has 219 A321 for economics of scale.

N14AZ wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
N62NA wrote:

I'm one of those "high yield, last minute passengers" and I can tell you that waiting an additional 30 minutes per schedule is much more preferable to me than having to sit on the plane waiting for an ATC slot due to "congestion" or waiting for a late arriving inbound plane.


I am too and I can tell you if one airline flies the Rout 5-6 times a day and the other flies it 15, I’m choosing the latter.

And that's - with all due respect - what I do not understand:

Yes, five options would be great: let's say two in the morning, one at noon and two different options in the evening.
But 15 or even 20 as described above?!?! What's the point in having so many alternatives?

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. Maybe it's due to my job and the locations I have to travel to. I can be happy if they offer a daily connection...

Newbiepilot wrote:
Flexibility and cost. UA and DL have or have had domestic widebodies. US airlines are quite Capital conservative for domestic fleet. It is hard to justify the expense of a new widebody that may be triple the cost of a narrowbody for domestic use.

I guess that's one of the best explanations. Whenever this topic gets started on a.net some members will answer prayer-mill-like "because US-American passenger prefer "frequency". Since when do airlines do what the passengers want...?


You're right, once frequency hits a certain point (e.g. 10 flights a day), the rest is down to CASM and the CASM of the A330R is worse than A321 so that's why no one other than Saudia bought A330R, presumably for Hajj.

mjoelnir wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Back in the 1990s DL and UA put new build 767s into a domestic configuration. That is back in the late 1990s in the dot.com boom when Airlines spent wildly. Nowadays there is just too much capital tied up with doing that. UA prefers reconfiguring old low value 777s for domestic use.

I think this is where the term widebody with narrowbody economics comes from for them NMA. High density widebodies already are competitive on CASM when ownership costs are excluded. The problem is they are on a higher pricing curve and ownership costs become unfavorable for widebodies to the point that multiple narrowbodies makes sense. Getting the NMA priced in line with narrowbody pricing is the key to tapping into the domestic market.

To help explain, there is basically a linear relationship with seat-count and payload versus price. The higher the seat count or payload, the more expensive the plane and more airlines are willing to pay. This is why the manufacturers have little interest selling A319s or 737-7s and are pushing the airlines to bigger versions that cost more and have higher profit margins. This undercuts the price that Airbus can change for regional A330s and is why defatted versions are almost never economically viable.

There is a step change between the pricing curves for the 737/A320 families to the A330/787. There is a jump up somewhere around $20 Million once Airlines get into widebodies. This isn’t a big deal for airlines that have easy access to capital and financing. For those airlines using A330s or 787s on regional flights isn’t a problem since the cost of capital is low. For the US airlines, they are very cost conscious with their 700+ airplane fleets. The A330 regional is simply too expensive to make work. This is what the NMA is trying to exploit. If they can price the plane like a stretched A321/737 then the market will eat it up.


Than people should stop talking about frequency, frequency and again frequency. The frequency argument, even on TATL, kills both the A330 and the 797 ideas.

Everybody knows by now that the price of a 797 will not match the price of a stretched A321. It will perhaps match the price per seat, but that we do see on an A330 regional.


The 797 would be better off as a narrowbody DC-8 Super 60 clone with GTFs rather than a widebody so that Boeing can design a composite narrowbody fuselage for the NSA, and it looks like many people agree.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:12 pm

Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
Actually most people promoting the 797 are talking about 4500-5000 range. Which is plenty capable for replacing many TATL flights. You are basically suggesting that the A321LR is useless as well. I mean who would want to fly a plane with no space or payload for cargo 4000nm???? Do you really think airlines put that much stock into whether the plane is narrowbody or a twin aisle when determining whether it will work well in their fleet? They look at the overall numbers.


TATL from the east coast, that is it. The A321LR means no cargo and an airline like LH looks at it being to short legged for TATL. If the only use for the 797 would be TATL you do not need it. That 4500 to 5000 nm and no cargo does not originate with me, I just repeat what the tenor is. The A321LR does 4000 nm pax and bags no cargo. What do you call right above it? I call 4500nm right above it.

Why? Because you said so? Keep in mind it is the North American and European airlines that are pushing for the aircraft to have less cargo. Cargo is not that lucrative across the Atlantic.


Cut the no cargo push down to North American Airlines. If not for domestic use, why no cargo? 767s fly a lot of belly cargo also on TATL and especially from and to South America. If the aim is mainly for TATL, than the market gets very small for a 797.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4150
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:17 pm

Swadian wrote:
c933103 wrote:
afcjets wrote:

762 10F + 30J = 40P X 8 flights per day = 320 premium seats per day
32T 10F + 20J = 30P X 12 flights per day = 360 premium seats per day, 12.5% increase

762 128Y X 8 flights per day = 1024Y seats per day
32T 72Y X 12 flights per day = 864Y seats per day, 18.5% decrease

Reconfiguring 762 with 12.5% more P seats would be 5 more. 40 X 12.5% = 5

Y would need to be reduced by 10 seats on 762 or 8.5% to add 5 more P seats.

12 daily 32Ts reduced Y by 18.5% or approx 2.2 times as 762 reconfiguration would have.

So you want to say using 762 could result in too many Y seat? Airlines can also refit 762 into having something similar to 10F 42J 107Y which would be even more premium heavy with less Y seat if that is desired, and there are also more different types of widebodies than 762


Except you're missing that the 762 is inefficient. It burns almost as much fuel as a 763 but carries barely any more than A321, and AA has 219 A321 for economics of scale.

Then one can just use 763, or as thread title stated, 33R
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10508
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:42 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Polot wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:

TATL from the east coast, that is it. The A321LR means no cargo and an airline like LH looks at it being to short legged for TATL. If the only use for the 797 would be TATL you do not need it. That 4500 to 5000 nm and no cargo does not originate with me, I just repeat what the tenor is. The A321LR does 4000 nm pax and bags no cargo. What do you call right above it? I call 4500nm right above it.

Why? Because you said so? Keep in mind it is the North American and European airlines that are pushing for the aircraft to have less cargo. Cargo is not that lucrative across the Atlantic.


Cut the no cargo push down to North American Airlines. If not for domestic use, why no cargo? 767s fly a lot of belly cargo also on TATL and especially from and to South America. If the aim is mainly for TATL, than the market gets very small for a 797.

You are the one who has arbitrarily decided that the 797 (a plane for which we have no specs for) does not have enough cargo capacity/payload range to satisfy TATL needs (even though Boeing has never said it will have no cargo, just likely less than a wide body of equivalent cabin width would traditionally have, and that the Asian customers are the ones pushing for more cargo). I don’t know how in one breath you can actually believe this and in another promote the A321LR- you realize most legacy users of the A321LR are going to be primarily using them “long haul” because they will have cabins ill suited for short haul needs? But how can they do so without cargo capacity? Maybe, just maybe, cargo is not an important factor on these thinner TATL routes that the A321LR/A321XLR/A321 plus plus/A322/797 would be used on and the passenger airlines would prefer the focus be on getting best per passenger costs even if it comes at the expense of cargo capacity especially as LCC (who often ignore cargo) competition grows? :scratchchin: It’s not like they will be dumping their 787/A330neos- they can still be used on routes that need the cargo lift.


It is clear what the 797 is intended for- medium haul haul (including TATL) high capacity aircraft better optimized than A330s or 787s in that role. It is largely expected the US3 are primarily interested in using that to replace 767s which as I mentioned earlier today are primarily used (and configured!) internationally expect for positioning and utilization flights. It is already apparent what the US3 are going to use as their large domestic aircraft- the 737-10/A321neo. That is why the US3 have a total of 300 on order without including options or A321ceos left to be delivered and in fleets.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:52 am

Swadian wrote:
Except that big, heavy, and fat widebody aircraft burn so much fuel during takeoff that they often do not have lower CASM on shorter flights than a more optimized A321. Asian airlines use them due to slot restrictions, not due to CASM, and even then they don't use them very often, since the CN3 did not order A330R.


It's not necessarily just slot restrictions. For example, both MU and CA run hourly "shuttle" between PEK and SHA. 80% (if not more) of the flights overall on that route are widebodies (Usually A333, but CA do sub in B744 occasionally, while a few flights on MU are on 77W), b/c the route is THAT busy. Same can be said for routes like HKG-TPE, or Japanese domestic trunk routes like HND-FUK/CTS/ITM/OKA (The first two especially, with JL and NH running sub-hourly 772 on the route), or down in SE Asia, SIN-CGK and SIN-BKK.

Otherwise, CN3 loves their A321/A320/B738 just as much otherwise anyway (See routes like PEK-CKG or PEK-KMG, for example, yes, still some A332/A333/B789 on those routes, but only 2-3 out of 15+ daily flights).
 
User avatar
Qantas94Heavy
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:37 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 3:48 am

zakuivcustom wrote:
It's not necessarily just slot restrictions. For example, both MU and CA run hourly "shuttle" between PEK and SHA. 80% (if not more) of the flights overall on that route are widebodies (Usually A333, but CA do sub in B744 occasionally, while a few flights on MU are on 77W), b/c the route is THAT busy. Same can be said for routes like HKG-TPE, or Japanese domestic trunk routes like HND-FUK/CTS/ITM/OKA (The first two especially, with JL and NH running sub-hourly 772 on the route), or down in SE Asia, SIN-CGK and SIN-BKK.


Well that is exactly due to slot restrictions. If flying an A321 was cheaper on a per seat basis then given no slot restrictions you'd just add more A321 flights to add capacity.

However, there is a sizable financial/environmental cost to expand airports for the extra slots needed for narrowbodies, which is why they end up using widebodies to transport more people for the limited number of slots they have.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:40 am

Qantas94Heavy wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
It's not necessarily just slot restrictions. For example, both MU and CA run hourly "shuttle" between PEK and SHA. 80% (if not more) of the flights overall on that route are widebodies (Usually A333, but CA do sub in B744 occasionally, while a few flights on MU are on 77W), b/c the route is THAT busy. Same can be said for routes like HKG-TPE, or Japanese domestic trunk routes like HND-FUK/CTS/ITM/OKA (The first two especially, with JL and NH running sub-hourly 772 on the route), or down in SE Asia, SIN-CGK and SIN-BKK.


Well that is exactly due to slot restrictions. If flying an A321 was cheaper on a per seat basis then given no slot restrictions you'd just add more A321 flights to add capacity.

However, there is a sizable financial/environmental cost to expand airports for the extra slots needed for narrowbodies, which is why they end up using widebodies to transport more people for the limited number of slots they have.


Again, tell me how exactly running hourly A330 on PEK-SHA or sub-hourly 772 on HND-CTS a result of lack of slot? If slots is really that big of an issue, you would see a.nutter dream of multiple Chinese domestic A380 instead of the 2x daily PEK-CAN CZ A380 only. What is CA or MU suppose to do? Pull off what Korean carriers do on GMP-CJU and have a flight every 5 mins? (I believe they only do that bc CJU can only handle so many widebodies at the same time).
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2161
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:41 am

If a WB was actually cheaper to operate on a route, it will be used. Instead, the airlines select the best equipment for system profitability. But one airline may find a 777 is best for this route, an A330 for that route, etc. Over time their preferences can be seen to change with their orders. Alaska flies the majority of flights out of SEA, they are only NB's. Most of the flights from SEA if they can be flown with a NB. they are.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4150
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:09 am

zakuivcustom wrote:
Qantas94Heavy wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
It's not necessarily just slot restrictions. For example, both MU and CA run hourly "shuttle" between PEK and SHA. 80% (if not more) of the flights overall on that route are widebodies (Usually A333, but CA do sub in B744 occasionally, while a few flights on MU are on 77W), b/c the route is THAT busy. Same can be said for routes like HKG-TPE, or Japanese domestic trunk routes like HND-FUK/CTS/ITM/OKA (The first two especially, with JL and NH running sub-hourly 772 on the route), or down in SE Asia, SIN-CGK and SIN-BKK.


Well that is exactly due to slot restrictions. If flying an A321 was cheaper on a per seat basis then given no slot restrictions you'd just add more A321 flights to add capacity.

However, there is a sizable financial/environmental cost to expand airports for the extra slots needed for narrowbodies, which is why they end up using widebodies to transport more people for the limited number of slots they have.


Again, tell me how exactly running hourly A330 on PEK-SHA or sub-hourly 772 on HND-CTS a result of lack of slot? If slots is really that big of an issue, you would see a.nutter dream of multiple Chinese domestic A380 instead of the 2x daily PEK-CAN CZ A380 only. What is CA or MU suppose to do? Pull off what Korean carriers do on GMP-CJU and have a flight every 5 mins? (I believe they only do that bc CJU can only handle so many widebodies at the same time).

At least the current arrangement on PEK-SHA flight is due to inter-airlines coordination to save slot iirc
JayinKitsap wrote:
If a WB was actually cheaper to operate on a route, it will be used. Instead, the airlines select the best equipment for system profitability. But one airline may find a 777 is best for this route, an A330 for that route, etc. Over time their preferences can be seen to change with their orders. Alaska flies the majority of flights out of SEA, they are only NB's. Most of the flights from SEA if they can be flown with a NB. they are.

Alaska don't even have any wb
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate.
Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:38 am

c933103 wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
Qantas94Heavy wrote:

Well that is exactly due to slot restrictions. If flying an A321 was cheaper on a per seat basis then given no slot restrictions you'd just add more A321 flights to add capacity.

However, there is a sizable financial/environmental cost to expand airports for the extra slots needed for narrowbodies, which is why they end up using widebodies to transport more people for the limited number of slots they have.


Again, tell me how exactly running hourly A330 on PEK-SHA or sub-hourly 772 on HND-CTS a result of lack of slot? If slots is really that big of an issue, you would see a.nutter dream of multiple Chinese domestic A380 instead of the 2x daily PEK-CAN CZ A380 only. What is CA or MU suppose to do? Pull off what Korean carriers do on GMP-CJU and have a flight every 5 mins? (I believe they only do that bc CJU can only handle so many widebodies at the same time).

At least the current arrangement on PEK-SHA flight is due to inter-airlines coordination to save slot iirc


To certain extent, yes. Another part of the equation, though, is that ticket price is fixed, at least on the PEK-SHA routes (I'm not sure if the other domestic flight has fixed ticket price or not), which means Chinese airlines doesn't have the incentive to increase to something like 30 min headway (or 15 mins frequency on a ton of 738) to compete with each other.

Another reason for coordination is Chinese gov't doesn't really like airlines going head-to-head that much with each other, and hurting each other's profit. The airlines would not want to directly compete with each other by offering the exact flight time, and instead, preferred operating every other flight. The most common is for one airline to operate on the hour (i.e. xx00), the other 30 mins after that (xx30) anyway, a practice that was done even in US airlines on the East Coast Shuttle routes (Not anymore, though).
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2161
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:07 pm

c933103 wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
If a WB was actually cheaper to operate on a route, it will be used. Instead, the airlines select the best equipment for system profitability. But one airline may find a 777 is best for this route, an A330 for that route, etc. Over time their preferences can be seen to change with their orders. Alaska flies the majority of flights out of SEA, they are only NB's. Most of the flights from SEA if they can be flown with a NB. they are.

Alaska don't even have any wb


Having flown over 250K on AS I am very aware they only have 737's up until the recent merger where they can see how the A320's perform.

SEA outside of the International Terminal is almost totally NB's. HA flies 330's to Hawaii, Delta uses 753's, everyone else flies NB's to HA. From Seattle all US domestic except for HA to Hawaii is NB's to the best I can tell.
 
User avatar
777222LR
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:19 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:15 pm

I think the wide body domestic usage in the US mainly has to do with positioning. That said, I've been on DEN-SFO and the flight was full on a 777. So I don't doubt there is a market for it, but maybe not all of the time. There are plenty of 777's and 787's in between EWR/SFO/LAX/IAH/IAD on UA. American and Delta I'm not too familiar with.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13201
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:20 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
From a yield management point of view I much rather work to fill 2 A320s a couple hours apart than a single A330 departure.
Smaller capacity plane tend to reduce pressure of discounting and are better to deal with things like day of week or seasonality swings.

The need for frequency is completely overdrawn in these discussions.

And yet, which statement actually reflects the reality of operations as they stand?
...not the latter.

And before anyone screams "Asia!" as if that were some monolithic example to the contrary, look a bit more closely:
it's experiencing the same thing, just based on a larger scale of gauge. We've actually seen downsizing from larger gauge widebodies to smaller gauge in the Chinese, Japanese, and intra ASEAN markets over the last decade, in exchange for increases in frequency. Same concept.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4899
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:36 pm

par13del wrote:
[quote="afcjets"
If that’s the case it’s not the airlines fault. Boeing and Airbus should have shorter range widebodies which achieve economies of scale instead of the opposite.

To follow the good corporate citizen mantra...or heaven forbid Airbus and Boeing limit the range of their narrow body fleet to 1,000 miles max thus forcing airlines to use widebody a/c. The range would be less than 1,000 once pax and bags are loaded, and airlines would not want to fly empty wide body a/c between NYC and places west and south so flights would have to be consolidated and frequencies decrease.
A knock off effect may see the re-emergence of true regional airlines since the majors would have less need for all those A32X and 737's.

Of course this does go hand in hand with it being the OEM's who build the a/c not looking out for the environment etc and allowing the airlines to run amok.[/quote]
The OEM's don't allow the Airlines to do anything!! The airlines purchase airplanes and they decide HOW they'll be used. Boeing Nor Airbus can't tell any carrier JACK! That's not their place. They can offer operational opinions and if they're accepted? Fine. But were Boeing Or Airbus to tell an airline How they want them to fly ygan airplane? They would find said airplane on their door step with a note to SHOVE IT!! It's like a car dealer selling you a car then telling you where you can't drive it! YGBK. you can't be serious..
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4755
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:38 pm

Some of you should read the 1980s book by well respected then SAS CEO Jan Carlzon where he made the very good case of how flying smaller planes with higher frequency in then the relatively new era of hubs and spokes was far more profitable path to pursue.

In addition, there have been many other studies and even academic papers that have shown how frequency generates greater returns versus gauge in today's hub and spoke game. Each frequency provides ever-increasing cumulative benefit for the hub.

With bulk of US airports not having slot of capacity issues, there really no pressure to have or to pursue larger gauge especially a widebody like A330s.

Oh and for those that point to Asia, you hopefully realize gauge has shrunk over the decades and airlines are far more apt to fly A320 family or A330 with higher frequency today than the DC-10 / 747 of yesteryear.
mercure f-wtcc
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3579
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Airbus a330 regional in the US

Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:41 pm

ilovelamp wrote:
The US regional model is based on what can be allowed by the scope provisions of the majors and legacy carrier's pilot labor contracts. So, that’s why an A330 “US Regional” doesn’t exist.

What you need to be asking is why isn’t there a LCC or ULCC doing this kind of flying. My guess is the competition is just too fierce and the margins aren’t worth it.


The A330 regional is a term used to describe a lower certified T-O & landing weight, not a replacement for regiona'ls under scope clause. Those would have fewer than 76 seats. The reason for the lower weights is many countries have cost based on landing & T-O weights if you drop a planes weight several thousand pounds you save a lot of money on fees. An A330 regional would not have a scope clause problem, lack of frequency would be the problem in the US.

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