Etops is right. Common sense and logic would tell you something is up. These three new destinations can't be flown with our existing fleet. The 330 can't fly to ATH. The 757 can't fly to ZRH and BRU...well that could be flown with a 757 I guess. Personally I think Airbus widebodies are done here. I'll stick with my earlier post/prediction: used 767 all versions and 777s. 757s are only a short term quick solution for short to medium haul transatlantic operations with low load factors. I guess we'll just have to sit tight and wait.
New European Cities 2007 Athens, Brussels, Zurich
- Thread starter RICflyer
- Start date
If this is a veiled reference to China (PRC), the only way US is getting into China, for several years at least, is indirectly through the UA code share - IF UA gets route approval. If the reference is to Russia, a PHL-MOW route was supposedly already considered and PHL-ATH was chosen instead - for at least the time being. If US had the aircraft, they would surely attempt MOW if for nothing else than the simple prestige of flying the route. In fact MOW is about 300 nm closer to PHL than ATH. Personally, I believe US may have had more leverage with PHL for gates, if they had chosen Moscow. Flying to Russia OTOH is evidently frought with constant local Russian ATC and Clearance headaches.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
airports make money by the number of passengers and airplanes that pass through their facilities. They could care less whether airlines charge high fares or not if the passenger counts remain the same. The reason why airpors prefer low fare carriers like WN is because they use their gates very efficiently which means lots of flights and lots of passengers. WN could operate 4 flights in the time that a US int'l widebody sits on the gate - in addition to what WN can do in the other times of the day when US doesn't really need the gate.
What hasn't been mentioned is that US operates alot of European service on a seasonal basis - which means the gates are needed for only a part of the year. WN would obviously use the gates year round.
US could indeed operate its current and lots more int'l service using its existing gates if they were willing to pull planes off the gates after they arrive and other gate maximizing techniques. Not to turn this into a DL-US thread, but that is exactly what DL has been forced to do at JFK in order to grow its operations there. It's not ideal but DL certainly can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to expand its facilities there and even when it can, the economics will undoubtedly argue for moving airplanes around that spending tens of millions of dollars for each new gate.
Also, CO in EWR and DL in ATL both operate transatlantic flights over a 5-6 hour period in the evening for departures. There is a pretty wide time period that can be used for transatlantic operations. Obviously having enough domestic flights is important but some flights during the summer have a pretty high percentage of local passengers and can afford to be operated off the peak hub bank times at least in the summer. If the cost is not operating another int'l flight, the revenue decrese is likely to be pretty small compared with the opportunity which is being passed up.
The real solution is to build more airspace and terminal capacity - and that benefits every airline and every passenger but doing so is expensive and has to be justified in terms of strong usage. US' ability to commit to signficant terminal expansion is tied to its fleet plans.
What hasn't been mentioned is that US operates alot of European service on a seasonal basis - which means the gates are needed for only a part of the year. WN would obviously use the gates year round.
US could indeed operate its current and lots more int'l service using its existing gates if they were willing to pull planes off the gates after they arrive and other gate maximizing techniques. Not to turn this into a DL-US thread, but that is exactly what DL has been forced to do at JFK in order to grow its operations there. It's not ideal but DL certainly can't spend hundreds of millions of dollars to expand its facilities there and even when it can, the economics will undoubtedly argue for moving airplanes around that spending tens of millions of dollars for each new gate.
Also, CO in EWR and DL in ATL both operate transatlantic flights over a 5-6 hour period in the evening for departures. There is a pretty wide time period that can be used for transatlantic operations. Obviously having enough domestic flights is important but some flights during the summer have a pretty high percentage of local passengers and can afford to be operated off the peak hub bank times at least in the summer. If the cost is not operating another int'l flight, the revenue decrese is likely to be pretty small compared with the opportunity which is being passed up.
The real solution is to build more airspace and terminal capacity - and that benefits every airline and every passenger but doing so is expensive and has to be justified in terms of strong usage. US' ability to commit to signficant terminal expansion is tied to its fleet plans.
GroundedBoricua
Senior
- May 29, 2004
- 300
- 0
Yep CO should be heading to ATH pretty soon. :mellow:
Dog Wonder
Veteran
You don't have to suck up to Kirby to get public information.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
If the Athens service is indeed seasonal, the range of the 330 is moot.
The 330 only stretches its capabilities on the FCO-PHL legs, and then only in the winter time when the prevailing westerly winds are very strong. FCO-PHL in the summer is a cake walk, as will ATH-PHL be.
We aren't getting 777s.
We aren't getting 787s.
We may very well get some used 767s, but that will be the extent of additions to our Boeing wide-body fleet. We would probably get some 757s, too, if they were available at less-than-outrageous prices. They not; so we're not.
The 330 only stretches its capabilities on the FCO-PHL legs, and then only in the winter time when the prevailing westerly winds are very strong. FCO-PHL in the summer is a cake walk, as will ATH-PHL be.
We aren't getting 777s.
We aren't getting 787s.
We may very well get some used 767s, but that will be the extent of additions to our Boeing wide-body fleet. We would probably get some 757s, too, if they were available at less-than-outrageous prices. They not; so we're not.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
Could that bright star that Etops mentioned be the star of david in Israel? Tel Aviv maybe?
Where on earth are you getting this (mis)information ??
1. ATH is 600 nm further from PHL than is FCO. The US Airways 333 range, because of it's lower powered early generation engines has a non-weight restricted range under ideal enviromental conditions of about 4000nm. US's 333s CANNOT approach the range of the current generation 333s specified by Airbus (5650 nm).
2. Parker has already stated publicly that a Boeing alternative to the A350XWB is possible - and a 767 is NOT an alternative to the A350. He'd be foolish to do otherwise. Airbus has proven over and over that it cannot meet the A350 delivery date. Would you expect Parker to wait until 2014 or later for an (Airbus) aircraft with the range for PHL-Asia or PHL-Africa, or PHX beyond Japan? If he did US would be relegated to a non-competitive Legacy by 2010 - at the latest.
ringmaruf
Veteran
You're both wrong. It's Alpha Centauri. To be codeshared with Virgin Galactic.
Fixed Wing
Senior
- Jun 19, 2004
- 259
- 6
So what you are saying is that our leaders announced to investors that we intend to fly a route summer 2007 that we don't have aircraft to make it non-stop? (PHL-ATH = 4.375 nm)
I'm thinking someone has thought this out before announcing it. Our ops engineering people state that the our A330 has a range in zero wind/MTOW of 5,190 nm. The dispatchers use info from ops engineering so I'm guessing it's accurate.
Pretty accurate.
I'm thinking BCN and AMS remain 767s.
Can't see only flying 7 out of 10 767s on etops routes.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Maybe from experience. I flew them FCO-PHL on a regular basis during the summer of 2002. I don't recall ever having seats blocked or weight restrictions.
That being said, I never said that the 767 would be a replacement for the 350. I said that we may see more 767s here since it will be the quickest way to get transoceanic lift. It appears Parker is intent on expanding Europe in the near term. The 350s, even on schedule, could never have been in the plan for near term expansion. What else is there?
I am still convinced that we will NEVER see 777s or 787s here.
I am still convinced that Airbus will arrange for us to get 330s (doesn't matter which model, so your range argument is moot) as interim aircraft to provide us with lift ON THE SCHEDULE originally planned for the 350. They will happily make up any difference in cost of operation while we wait for the 350s.
SoftLanding
Senior
- Jul 25, 2005
- 255
- 1
With a weakening economy, is Parker just trying to negotiate with the East pilots?
The Atlantic might become rather interesting with all the seats being added from the likes of US, CAL and of course Delta, who's expanding overseas like there will never be recession again.
What happened the last time we saw this type of expansion? Anyone remember?
SoftLanding
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
This wasn't worth starting a new thread since it's nor really new information, so I'll add it here. Some interesting numbers....
US Airways Orders Blended Winglets for Seven Boeing 757-200 Aircraft
Jim
US Airways Orders Blended Winglets for Seven Boeing 757-200 Aircraft
Jim
Jim,
Talking to a few store(concession)employees in PIT, they said their sales have gone DOWN since WN started there. Of course, there are fewer US flights so that would also contribute to that. On the other hand, they said that they have more "window shoppers" than people who make a purchase from the WN crowd. Another factor they also contributed to less shoppers in the WN crowd is the WN boarding "cattle call", noone wants to give up their place in line to go shopping. I don't know if this applies to PHL, but I suspect it may be a similar situation.
Dorf
