RJMAZ wrote:Bricktop wrote:If I am paying top dollar to fly non-stop from Australia to London, my bags had better be on the same plane or I would be very pissed.
How pissed would you be if an airline said they had to block 50 seats and you were one of the unlucky psssengers who could not fly?
How pissed would you be if it had to make a fuel stop and you missed your connecting flight?
This happened fairly often on LAX-SIN with the 787-9. They had to cancel the route. The blocked seats were a disaster.
If there is a cyclone in Asia right in the way of the ideal flight path and the flight has to take a route that is 2-3% longer the aircraft may not enough fuel.
Indeed, being able to carry the desired load of passengers and bags the vast majority of the time is a problem which will need to be addressed for Project Sunrise to work. But planning to regularly send passenger bags on a different connecting flight which relies on a connection working perfectly (no delays on the SYD-PER flight from ATC, weather, engineering, passenger issues, or a myriad other factors, and then requiring two aircraft being parked in the right place in PER which means no issues with aircraft on gates out of sequence) in order for the bags not to be delayed by 12-24 hours is not the answer to that problem. Specifying an aircraft that can carry the desired load of passengers and bags the vast majority of the time is the answer to that problem. This may be why the initial 300-passenger requirement seems to have subsequently been downplayed in public statements. Could we please now put the baggage transshipment red herring to rest?