|Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 34):|
It's not needed, it's preferred. People, particularly on transcons like these, would much rather have the freedom of choice, and by flying more frequencies with smaller aircraft, they can provide more options at about the same (or even less) cost. A 777 is much more expensive to operate than an A321.
|Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):|
Yes. Schedule flexibility is important on these routes due to many of the people taking these flights not working a set schedule (meetings, film/tv shoots, etc.).
I made the assumption that having fewer flights eg 6 wide bodies instead of 12 narrow bodies would be cheaper in terms of fuel and staff costs but admittedly I have no idea about fuel. Staff cost would definitely be less thoughl.
But in terms of passenger comfort, maybe its just me but I would go out of my way to take a wide body.
Maybe it really is a preference as Longhornmaniac suggested. For example, SIN
to Kuala Lumpur is a 30 minute flight and among the busiest in the world. SQ
uses wide bodies on it like their 330s and 777 with 3-4 daily flights whereas MH
and the LCCs use narrow bodies with more flights. From experience, SQ
loads in J and Y are usually around 80% whereas MH
and the LCCs are considerably lower. Not sure about MI
. My point is that if they take 2-3 consecutive narrow body flights off the schedule and put one big bird in between, some will want that option simply because its a wide body.
|Quoting N62NA (Reply 74):|
Because people in the USA are under the faulty assumption that if they had to wait an additional 30 minutes until the next flight, they would die instantly. So, we're left with major gridlock at LGA / JFK / EWR where it often takes 1 hour just from pushback until wheels up.
Precisely! Would it make all that much of a difference if you flew at 10am instead of 9 or 11? And airports like LAX
are among the busiest in the world. This is a bit of a stretch here but If the American carriers could take 30% of the flights out and replace the rest with some wide bodies, it'll definitely save the airlines and airports a lot of manpower
|Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 95):|
This is always going to be the case, on any airline. Even the best airlines, SQ, CX and the like all have considerably different premium long haul products compared to their regional offerings. The difference with those carriers is they operate widebodies, which have more room to play with. Even still, most of them don't offer a proper F on their regional flights.
Not sure about CX
, North Asian is alien to me. In Southeast Asia, SQ
has axed F on most regional flights except Jakarta. For F on Jakarta, half of the fleet uses their new F which they use on long haul flights, the other half use the old F which is comparable to their new J on long haul flights- http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/flying-with-us/first-listing/
I like that SQ uses only wide bodies but I think I have established that I'm a small bird hater :P
[Edited 2012-07-23 20:05:36]