Old Jan 3, 15, 4:16 pm
  #2  
FlyerChrisK
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP, Hilton GLD, Marriott Plat, NEXUS/GE
Posts: 2,873
Originally Posted by fivesixseven View Post
Wouldn't the fuel stops in Canada be very costly to UA? Or is flying a 757 still cheaper than a 767?
The fuel stops have a small time and fuel cost (and add a pressurization cycle to the plane). Since it costs fuel to carry fuel, they'll put enough in the tanks to make it to Canada (rather than say, "30 minutes short of Chicago").

These fuel stops are planned before they take off in Europe, so this isn't a safety issue ("oh, we're out of gas, better land" is not being discussed in the cockpit).

Putting a 767 on a route has a few issues:
  • PMCO didn't have enough widebodies to go around, so they put their 752's to work flying across the pond. Absent buying new planes to avoid fuel stops (and note, this is mostly only necessary during the winter), the 752 might be the only plane available to operate that flight (while maintaining the rest of their schedule).
  • A 767 might be too much plane for some of these routes. Putting a 767 on Newark-Hamburg is great, but would require UA sell more seats more cheaply to cover their costs (the 767 is a bigger, heavier plane).
FlyerChrisK is offline