Originally Posted by ND Sol
But look at other examples. Flight 52 (a 762) goes from IAH-EWR-IAH, which takes most of the day -- I would imagine cargo has something to do with this. Also a few weeks ago, Flight 51 (EWR-IAH (762)) which I was on was delayed because we were overweight with cargo and had to take some off. So I think that cargo does play an important role for at least CO.
As for the weekend specials, I never recall seeing so many destinations from IAH. It was significantly higher than at any other time that I remember.
Your point is well taken.
Cargo sent between IAH and EWR is most likely internationally bound. EWR is a gateway city, similar to LAX. International cargo is a substantial source of revenue for carriers.
At origin, cargo which is internationally bound is configured into consolidations by destination. For example, several companies have goods destined to Italy, a consolidation would be ROM. This improves handling when the freight is on the ground. A consolidation upon arrival at a gateway city is transferred to the next leg on route to the destination.
While some domestic freight will move via air between points, it has no where near the value of the international cargo. For example, if I can get $2.25 per kilo for freight between IAH and ROM, anything else that fills the belly drops to the bottom line.
Pulling cargo from a plane can occur for several reasons, weight and balance, need for additional fuel, etc.
Once again, flying a passenger craft to accommodate cargo does not make business sense. The rate of return is not enough to justify the increased operating cost.
But, if the narrow body capacity is running 90% (757) and a wide body (767) would net an 80% load factor, then yes, an equipment switch would make sense. The 10% differential will be offset by the increase in cargo.
Not to contradict my earlier statement, but cargo does not make a huge difference in the big picture of domestic US travel.
For example, if the IAH-EWR run was averaging a 55% load factor with a narrow body (757), switching to a wide body (767) makes no sense.
If cargo was an integral factor in domestic air travel, we would see an abundance of wide body aircraft flying domestic routes where applicable.
The original point of my message is enough alternatives exist for domestic air cargo that a ban would not have a substantial impact on the economics of air travel.
International cargo is easier to manage as time can be built in to accommodate additional screening measures