US 807 CLT-PHX-HNL today...and tomorrow

[Dog Wonder]

Can anyone tell me why?

Free entertainment.

 

[desertsun]

Get ready PHX US807 is diverting again. 4 for 4...and an average of 3 hours late.

Jeezz, the least they can do is give the passengers a choice of a burrito or taco from Macayo's as a good will gesture.

 

[California Girl]

Hp_FA

Let’s see…

Of course everyone was happy when adding CLT-HNL because it would be in anyone’s opinion that the flight would actually make it there. Meaning management and analysts forecasted the flight would make it no problem.

As I’ve said before, this flight is already a low yielding adventure; with adding a stop for fuel and associated fees along with it…you turn a marginally profitable flight to a money loser.

Let's take a look at the airplane…a Boeing 767-200ER that was built in 1986. At that time, the max takeoff weight (MTOW) for a 767 was around 351K, while the highest is now 395K. At this point, someone would have to dish out money to go to the higher MTOW (remind you of an earlier adventure?).

Now according to performance charts for this aircraft, the “Still-Air†(meaning no wind) range would be around 4800nm with a full load of pax and baggage. The higher MTOW range would be 6600nm with the same variables. Now throw ETOPS into this and fuel reserves would be higher, thus reducing the range.
Let’s also take a look at the length of the flight – approx 4065nm. A 50kt headwind would decrease the distance approximately 375nm to 4425. Now add in inefficiency of the aircraft over the years…and you’re now probably just slightly about the full flight segment. Add in the ETOPS rules and ATC issues; now the flight is busted.

And let’s take a look at this from a service perspective. You’d have at least 3 beverage services and a meal to PHX or LAX…then another 3 and a BOB to HNL. If you had a nonstop…you’d more than likely have no more than 4 in total. And that’s if the FA’s want to work the second segment in any case.

And do I have to remind the HP adventure with the 757 when the company didn’t want to buy the higher MTOW…but finally gave in after over a dozen diversions. Not to mention the HF radio issues.

So I don’t know HP FA…why would anyone be complaining about a flight that probably couldn’t make it in the first place? If anything…you’d be the first one walking off the plane filing a grievance…the East FA’s won’t do that because they get paid much more for filing their nails for over 11.5 hours.

Amateur management! That was the America West way…remember?

 

[California Girl]

Jeezz, the least they can do is give the passengers a choice of a burrito or taco from Macayo's as a good will gesture.

Macayos...US are you kidding me? ? Why, when that's too expensive. They would rather serve a mexi-melt from taco bell...then sell it for $7.00 as a"special" meal.

 

[hp_fa]

California Girl, are you then suggesting dropping the route? You can't expect the airline to buy two or three new planes for this route, especially since it is, as you say, a low yield route. So what are you suggesting?

 

[California Girl]

California Girl, are you then suggesting dropping the route? You can't expect the airline to buy two or three new planes for this route, especially since it is, as you say, a low yield route. So what are you suggesting?

You couldn't have said it better. Have you ever taken Airline 101....Hawaii is the low-yielding route for air carriers. Just because a flight is full...doesnt mean it's making money.

 

[cltflyer1]

How much would a few sets of longer range engines cost.

 

[California Girl]

How much would a few sets of longer range engines cost.

It's not the engines...it's the certificate.

 

[desertsun]

It's not the engines...it's the certificate.

IF that's the case, why not just retire the plane rather than flying routes (for example Hawaii) that do not make $?

 

[BuffaloJoe]

IF that's the case, why not just retire the plane rather than flying routes (for example Hawaii) that do not make $?

That's what AA did to most of their 762's. The only 762's they run are domestic. With 4 332's online now, why not use them at least till they would need them when May comes along.

 

[BoeingBoy]

why not just retire the plane rather than flying routes (for example Hawaii) that do not make $?

I doubt that Parker/Kirby started the CLT-HNL flight just to lose money - it's not like there's a lot of extra money lying around and US needs to get rid of some.

I suspect that they looked at the fligh and, decided that making a fuel stop X% of the time was acceptable. Unfortunately, it seems, that X% happened to be the first several days the flight operated.

On a different note, does anyone know if increasing the MTOW of US' 767's is possible just by paying Boeing for the higher weight paperwork?

Jim

 

[California Girl]

I doubt that Parker/Kirby started the CLT-HNL flight just to lose money - it's not like there's a lot of extra money lying around and US needs to get rid of some.

I suspect that they looked at the fligh and, decided that making a fuel stop X% of the time was acceptable. Unfortunately, it seems, that X% happened to be the first several days the flight operated.

On a different note, does anyone know if increasing the MTOW of US' 767's is possible just by paying Boeing for the higher weight paperwork?

Jim

Do you not know Doug and Scott....puh-lease...look at the DUI record. These two couldn't do a flight routing with some profit if it wasn't for flight planning.

Look at the routing today....this flight is screwed....they are trying to find better speed and can't.

 

[desertsun]

I doubt that Parker/Kirby started the CLT-HNL flight just to lose money - it's not like there's a lot of extra money lying around and US needs to get rid of some.

I suspect that they looked at the fligh and, decided that making a fuel stop X% of the time was acceptable. Unfortunately, it seems, that X% happened to be the first several days the flight operated.

On a different note, does anyone know if increasing the MTOW of US' 767's is possible just by paying Boeing for the higher weight paperwork?

Jim

Sorry Jim. Being new to posting, I need to learn to better express myself 🙂

I meant that given the low yield route, why not fly the bird on a normal domestic routing to say PHX and do a turn back - then in the summer, put the plane back on Europe, etc. (if management doesn't wish to retire). I don't know. As a customer, price being equal, I would always fly the 332 through ATL (including inflight service, personal tv's, etc.) over a 767 in CLT.

Just thinking - another boring Sunday and nothing on television.

 

[autofixer]

I am not defending management around this zoo, however, the winds aloft have been very heavy for the last couple of weeks; hence, all of the bad winter weather. I have seen 70 knots at 3000ft and well over 120 knots from the 20s up into the 30s.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I meant that given the low yield route, why not fly the bird on a normal domestic routing to say PHX and do a turn back - then in the summer, put the plane back on Europe, etc. (if management doesn't wish to retire). I don't know. As a customer, price being equal, I would always fly the 332 through ATL (including inflight service, personal tv's, etc.) over a 767 in CLT.

No apology necessary - I sorta figured you meant either fly the plane on a route that would be both profitable and a better fit for it's performance or retire it.

I stand by what I said - they thought/think that the route will be profitable and accepted that it would require a fuel stop some percentage of the time (more in winter, less in summer because of normal wind patterns that change with the seasons). Given the financial shape US is in, if there were a different route that they thought would be more profitable I can't come up with a reason the 767 would not be on that route instead of CLT-HNL.

Some talk about HI being a low yield market, and it is compared to some. But at 16.5 cents a mile for the cheapest non-refundable coach ticket over a month from now, it's profitable with a 70% or less average load factor. Throw in a few FC or refundable coach tickets sold, and the break even load factor drops. Most long haul flights are like that - the yield is less than many short haul routes where there's no low cost carrier to set the low fare, but the cost is less per mile too.

You've also got to remember that US' 767's have plenty of range to make HNL non-stop unless the winds are especially strong for a large portion of the flight. The difference between a 50 and 100 kt headwind for the entire cruise portion is effectivley a 350 nm reducton in range. A 150 kt headwind is another 350 nm reduction in range. Even in the winter you can fly around for weeks and not see 100 kt winds at altitude over any big area. Unfortunately, the flight started with over 100 kt winds aloft pretty much all the way to HI.

And for California Girl, yes - Parker/Kirby don't personally do the route planning and probably don't have a clue how to if they tried. But they're at the top of the food chain so the buck stops with them.

Jim