US to launch Express flights CLT-YOW

[strangiatotheme]

I think the reasoning was that someone else coming into that market with a "better plan/product" would make the route unprofitable and result in it being dropped. That's just my take, however.

Jim

I guess I'm just arguing semantics then.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't understand this "widebodies are more comfortable the a 757" business.

I don't either - too many years non-reving and just glad to get a seat I guess. The perception is apparently fairly common, however, since it's not uncommon to read it on FT.

Jim

 

[FutureUScapt]

Two things to consider. If it was profitable with the 767 why put a 757 on it? Read FlyerTalk and you'll find that a lot of frequent flyers don't like the narrow body 757 on the TA routes - they much prefer the wide body. That sentiment among passengers could result in a route that was marginally profitable becoming unprofitable with the 757 despite it's better economics.

Jim

That's the point that I'm trying to make though - that it wasn't profitable with a B767 (contrary to what other posters are unilaterally declaring) and rather than drop it, US decided to give a final shot with a plane with cheaper operating costs, and unfortunately, that still wasn't enough to offset the losses - though the P&L data is probably skewed by the fact massive downturn in travel that occurred last year.


Regarding FlyerTalk:

I know that you know to take what's posted over there with a grain of salt. People say things all the time about what they will or won't do regarding air travel, but when it comes down to it few walk the walk - this is especially true regarding what aircraft people will/won't fly. If the B757 was so unpopular transatlantic then you wouldn't see CO flying to all these second-tier cities with them. The bottom is line is that sure, when given the choice, people prefer a widebody to a narrowbody or a mainline jet to an RJ, but if flying on a smaller plane means that they can fly XYZ-EWR/PHL-ARN vs XYZ-PHL-CDG-ARN, the vast majority will chose the 1-stop option (or nonstop, if you live in EWR or PHL). And while SK uses a widebody for its US-ARN flight, CO operates EWR-ARN with a B757 so it's not as if you could even really make the argument that US was uncompetitive in that regards.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That's the point that I'm trying to make though - that it wasn't profitable with a B767 (contrary to what other posters are unilaterally declaring) and rather than drop it, US decided to give a final shot with a plane with cheaper operating costs, and unfortunately, that still wasn't enough to offset the losses - though the P&L data is probably skewed by the fact massive downturn in travel that occurred last year.

I certainly have no idea whether a particular flight is profitable or not, and outside of headquarters there are very very few people that do. If you've got evidence that it was unprofitable with the 767 I'd love to see it. Likewise for those who said it was so profitable with the 767. All I was saying was that just substituting an airplane with lower costs won't automatically make a flight more profitable or change it from unprofitable to profitable.

Obviously the FT comments are in the context of having a choice whether to fly a wide body or 757, or whether to fly non-stop on a 757 vs making a connection to have the TA segment on a wide body. But the fact that some portion of frequent flyers weigh those factors when deciding who to fly on is evidence of the preference for wide bodies. Heck, even Boeing produced the interior of the 787 to enhance the feeling that it was more roomy, so it's hard to claim that the type of equipment makes no difference.

Jim

 

[FutureUScapt]

Obviously the FT comments are in the context of having a choice whether to fly a wide body or 757, or whether to fly non-stop on a 757 vs making a connection to have the TA segment on a wide body. But the fact that some portion of frequent flyers weigh those factors when deciding who to fly on is evidence of the preference for wide bodies. Heck, even Boeing produced the interior of the 787 to enhance the feeling that it was more roomy, so it's hard to claim that the type of equipment makes no difference.

Jim

And there I will agree with you - that is, all other things being equal, it may be a deciding factor. Rarely though, is that the case and the evidence out there has shown that while it may be one of the factors consumers weigh in on, it is by and large not one of the deciding factors.

The point I'm trying to make with all this is that absent concrete evidence to the contrary, it's very farfetched to suggest that a route like PHL-ARN was supposedly "profitable" with a B767, yet became unprofitable as a result of switching it to a B757.

 

[BoeingBoy]

it's very farfetched to suggest that a route like PHL-ARN was supposedly "profitable" with a B767, yet became unprofitable as a result of switching it to a B757.

Without the specifics of that flight I can only address generalities, but "far-fetched" may be something of an overstatement. Cargo (or lack of ability to carry as much) could definitely make a flight that was marginal on the 767 unprofitable on the 757. Plus only one or two less higher yield passengers that chose LH via a connection in Germany over a US 757 could also make the difference. But I think I agree with the gist of what you're saying - if the flight was raking in profits on the 767 it would be unlikely to lose money on a 757 unless there was a lot of cargo money that was lost due to the 757 not being able to carry it. However, if the flight was raking in profits with the 767 it's hard to believe that even US management would pull that airplane off the route voluntarily.

Jim

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

I don't either - too many years non-reving and just glad to get a seat I guess. The perception is apparently fairly common, however, since it's not uncommon to read it on FT.

Jim

One would think that the folks over on FT have a their tushes in cushes enough not be taken in by the illusion of space on bigger A/C.

Maybe it's time to open a separate "are widebodies better" thread. We've gone a bit afield from the topic.