Originally Posted by J.Edward
Thanks for posting that link,
BF263533 
Quite an interesting read.If a competitive advantage is realized through the combination of quick turnarounds in America and Europe, relatively cheaper MX labor in Asia and more convenient flight times for travelers at the cost of a few extra hours of idle time in HKG than why not go for it?Yes, but Continental could improve it's equipment utilitization if they gassed up all idle planes and had them circle the airport rather than RON. They’d waste boatloads of fuel and labor but the a/c utilitization would shoot through the ceiling.
LOL. As you know there are serious ways to improve utilization. It's tough squeezing out extra minutes, but the impact on the FS can be impressive.
Originally Posted by J.Edward
Point being that it makes no sense for CO to go through the expense of an additional flight if the revenues cannot offset the expense. Yes, every business is driven by the bottom line but as we all know, in the airline business there's more than just aircraft utilitization driving profits/losses. Furthermore, we do not know what necessary tasks are being performed “behind the scenes” in HKG during the down time which would have to be performed elsewhere should the 777 continue on immediately.
I certainly don't disagree with what you're saying. My suggestion is to try to open up new markets. Going forward, I think Continental won't have too much choice. Growth is in trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific service; that's where the focus needs to be.
It's true that we don't know what maintenance is being performed. I do think that routes between US and China (and US/India) is where growth is. Developing routes to those two countries must be in the Continental's future.
Originally Posted by J.Edward
By simply saying "CO should add a flight here because the plane is sitting on the ground for too long" would shortsighted as there are undoubtedly many necessary functions, in addition to the few I've guessed at, which are performed during the down time.
It's more complex that that. But, China/India is where the focus should be. Where aircraft are service is an economic decision in the broadest sense of that term. If HKG makes the most sense, then that's where it should be done.
Originally Posted by J.Edward
First off, they can - and are - getting new planes which will allow for growth and perhaps better utilitization. But still, it seems like the 787's are going to do to Asia what the 757's did for Europe. To that extent, Houston and Newark have good potential for growth.Correct. But, the addition of ExpressJet flights represent much less of a fiscal risk than negotiating for new rights, launching new international marketing campaigns, doling out the cash for landing fees, etc.
I definitely agree with what your statement on the B787's and the Asian markets. The 777-200LR seems to have a slightly longer reach, but I bet that's something that Boeing is looking at. I expect to see some B787's serve the bigger markets in Europe too.
I think that there are probably better markets than IAH for international growth; however, since CO is already well entrenched there, it's much less expensive to expand from IAH. I still believe the carrier should consider LAX. Twenty years (or thereabouts), CO didn't have much of a presence in EWR. It got there through acquisition, something that wouldn't work at LAX. However, I have to imagine that, if done correctly, CO could generate lots of trans-Pacific traffic from an LAX hub.
I am a fan of the use of the RJ's. They were a good call on the part of Continental. They've helped the carrier stay competitive. I think with regard to expanding overseas, CO has to do it to prosper. It's shown that it can put the necessary infrastructure in place; I know the carrier will keep going in this direction.