Old Jan 3, 15, 4:21 pm
  #3  
fivesixseven
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 872
Originally Posted by FlyerChrisK View Post
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).
HAM maybe not, but i.e. AMS or perhaps TXL mustn't be that big of a problem for the 2 class version of the 767. After all, isn't that just a matter of marketing your product better (or offering a better - more competitive (inflight) - product)?
fivesixseven is offline