Not soon enough!

:D :D :D

2009

http://www.continental.com/vendors/d...22&s=&i=PRNews

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...r_041229g.html

Didn't NWA defer thier orders? Wouldn't this allow Continental to move up thier delivery date? ;)

-Vincent

can't see why they wouldn't be

more seats = more $$$$ = lower costs per seat mile

If you make the pizza so cheap you won't be able to give it away....

-Vincent

From Tuesday's WSJ "Middle Seat" column. It sounds like they've decided on nine across, but it's not a "public" decision.

Damnit :(

Any ideas on how to sway the boys and gals in Smith to go for 8 abreast?

Oil at $30 a barrel? :D

787 Nightmare Liner
 

I don’t know if Boeing has changed things, and the article was only speaking of "eye level", but in a May 2, 2005 Post I said -

If 8 across in coach, will CO have 2-4-2 or Boeing's suggested 3-2-3?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just ran across a special promotional section in the March 14, 2005 edition of Aviation Week. On 787 coach seating it said:

“Thus Boeing targeted an inside width of 205.6 in. at 50 in. above the floor, a number that makes the aircraft 14 in. wider than competition at seated eye level.
………………………….

Finally, the interior was designed to maximize the potential for passengers to have an empty seat next to them—a phenomenon that makes people perceive their seats are 4.25-in. wider than they really are, and this has a huge impact on customer comfort and satisfaction, says Klaus Brauer, Boeing Commercial Airplanes' director of passenger satisfaction and revenue. The mock-up of the eight abreast economy cabin shows a 3-2-3 seat arrangement that maximizes the use of empty seats. Airlines can opt for a 2-4-2 arrangement in the eight-abreast section, says Brauer, but at a load factor of 70%, there will be 12% more passengers seated next to empty seats in the 3-2-3 arrangement than in the 2-4-2 arrangement. The 787's nine-abreast economy-class cabin layout has 3-3-3 seating, which, says Brauer, is the most effective configuration in using empty seats.”

Considering that CO intends to deploy the 787 on its EWR-Hong Kong, Delhi and Beijing routes first, a high density ( 9 abreast ) configuration is a must assuming that the competition will fly bigger aircraft into those markets as well pushing the average fares down.

The question however remains, if CO is flying as an independant carrier when the 787 comes online and if CO is still focussing on niche markets at that point.

I know what we want to see, but did we ever seriously doubt that airlines would do anything other than cram as many seats as could fit inside of these things?

No – we only had a fools hope. :(

On that note, I'd guess CO will do what their competitors/partners are doing. If other 787 operators on the route go the way of 9 abreast than I'd be hard pressed to think of why CO would not.

But, on the other hand, they can have their cake and eat it too - as others have suggested before me, why not leave 1 or 2 rows in the 9 abreast configuration and restrict access to it. CO gets more seats and Y/H/elites get a tad more space.

...and besides, the competition is doing it.

Oh well. Time to (re)start the diet I suppose.

SOURCE???????

Everything we heard at the Houston DO indicated that the most likely initial routes would be out of Houston, with Europe (at that time) more likely to get the first flights. The problem with the Asia flights is that they take 2 aircraft to operate with the aircraft sitting many hours there ( 20 hours in HKG) doing nothing.

I would be willing to bet a beer that CO will go for the 3-3-3 configuration. As Larry said, you cannot make money if you do not have the seats to sell. With oil ~$70/bbl, I don;t think they will even think twice about this.

Maybe they will have those stand-up seats in Y that Airbus offers with the A380 :o.

Another interesting tidbit in that WSJ article:
For me personally, I think the break-even would be closer to 5 or 6" as I really hate sharing the armrest and unless my seatmate is on the small size, I am very uncomfortable in coach...

who cares? as long as BF is nice, its all good!

If over 60% of the airlines go for the 3-3-3, then I suspect CO will as well. But I really would like to have seen the 2-4-2 with a double arm rest in the center 2-2/2-2.

CO did once have 2-4-2 - that was on the A300. That was a nice configuration. F had 2-2-2, 4 rows on the A300.

I agree that not having someone next to me while seated in Y is more comfortable than having additional legroom only - I'd rather sit in a regular AB, DF, or KL seat on a 767 with no one next to me than in a bulkhead with someone in the adjacent seat.

I recently saw a website for an airline seat manufacturer that had designed a 3-3-3 configuration, with a seat width of 18 or 18.5 inches and 33 inches of pitch. The increased pitch and width were created by placing the seats at an angle. The angle also allowed each passenger to have two armrests. If I can find the website I'll post it.

I think you mean these guys:

http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/

The seats aren't really angled - the rows are offset/staggered. :)

I am sure they'll do 3-3-3. According to the WSJ article, majority of airlines have decided to do it that way, with only about 10% committed to 8-abreast.

Going from 8 to 9 give them 12.5% more seats to sell. That's a significant increase. CO may want to give it 32-33 pitch instead of 31. Going from 31 to 33 will cut seats by only about 6%. So, they'll still ahead.

Also, people usually pay more attention to seat pitch than width on paper. Airlines can more easily "sell" their increased legroom than increased width.

That's it. They're definitely staggered, but they also look like they're at a bit of an anlge. In any case, it looks more comfortable than the existing CO 777 Y configuration.

And herein lies why Continental should serve two, not just one, destination in the US! :) Cycling the equipment to two destinations makes sense. The aircraft could shuttle between Asian and European destinations, to maximize aircraft utilization. I don't know if IAH is necessarily the perfect hub for such a plan, but it has worked for LGW, CDG and AMS.

(Emphasis mine)

CO is probably least swayed by its competitors and partners. As someone posted in a different thread, CO's fares seem to be consistently higher than other airlines. I for one am glad that CO can charge a higher fare and yet post record load factors. More power to CO. Also, CO is the only Skyteam member to maintain 50% EQM and other restrictions that fly in the face of consistency with regards to alliance partners. Again, if this is a business model that works for CO, great for them. One thing's for sure - this 50% EQM sure has driven me to look/book at CO.com everytime I fly. To CO's credit, CO.com is top of the line and is easily the best airline website today.

I see CO opting for a 3-3-3 seating with 31" pitch, a la their 777s. If they can fill those birds with passengers willing to endure long hours in cattle class, I don't see why they should opt for a different configuration. Of course, I'd love something similar to the 767 with regards to seat configuration, but if I had to choose between CO and most US based carriers, I'd go with CO as long as the price is competitive.

Unless a US based carrier offers free alcohol in cattle class :D

The EWR-HKG route is kind of an unique case. All other flights: EWR-NRT/PEK/DEL and IAH-NRT come back to the US right away, requiring just over "one" 777 on each route.

But EWR-HKG has the longest flight time. In order to get the feed from other cities, the earliest it can depart is around noon, like EWR-PEK. That would get into HKG around 5pm. A 7pm departure at HKG will arrive EWR very late in the evening, and people can't connect to their final destinations.

That's why NW & UA all overnight their planes in HKG or other SE Asian airports. It's just the name of the game.

Having another US mainland-HKG flight is not going to help. IAH->HKG will take even longer than EWR->HKG, and the return flight will have similar time.

It's sad that while the HKG route is filled up to the gills right now, with the cheapest summer fares at like $1,700 (and no consolidator fares I can find), they still won't bump the frequency up from 6/week to daily.

Now, if Boeing had gone ahead with the sonic-cruiser, and CO had bought them, then it may be different. But that's another story for another time.

Seat Pitch?
 

Personally, as someome with a reasonable waist size and long inseam - I'd hope they make up a bit of it in seat pitch....

787 Nightmare Liner
 

from: Aviation Today – May 23, 2006

http://www.aviationtoday.com/reports/crampedseat.htm

Cramped Seating Can 'Trap' and 'Trip' Passengers During Emergency Evacuation'

More space needed for today's overweight, aging passengers, study concludes

The combination of larger passengers crammed into tightly packed seats could delay emergency evacuation and contribute to potentially fatal embolisms on long flights. Providing more space between seats, and redesigning them to better accommodate persons of widely varying sizes, could have enormous cost implications to the airlines.

A recent study concludes that economy-class passengers are so tightly packed together that they cannot assume a correct "brace" position for emergency landing, and the seats themselves can be obstacles to quick emergency evacuation of the cabin. The current minimum spacing and design standards for transport-category aircraft allow for too-tight seating, and new standards are needed regarding minimum seat width and a minimum area for feet.
…………………..

In fact, the study's recommendations are not intended to improve the passengers' comfort. Rather, they are intended to ameliorate the problem of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) on long flights and, more particularly, to expedite emergency evacuation.

Unfortunately, given the historical track record of safety improvements to passenger-carrying companies (Common Carriers still aren't required to furnish seatbelts to bus passengers under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations), I doubt anything will be done about seat-pitch as a safety issue anytime soon. No end of high-profile studies and reports may surface stating that 31" pitch is a danger, but nothing will be done. Lobbyists will ensure that no legislation ever gets off the ground, if any politician even bothers to take up the issue. The only circumstances under which I can foresee regulations being changed to call for increased seat pitch is if the current industry standard (approx 31" to 32" - by no means the minimum currently allowable) is determined to be a contributing factor to enhanced injuries/mortality in an evacuation/air crash disaster scenario (God forbid). Even then, I would imagine lobbyists would ensure that any change is excruciatingly slow, minimal, cost-minimising and largely ineffective

I can imagine that a few hefty class-action suits on behalf of those suffering from DVT in-flight might speed things along considerably. These days, litigation is far more effective behavior modification for corporations than legislation.

While they may try and command a premium competitor/partner fares play a major part in the pricing structure. Granted they may not match the latest WN special if all they have left are three seats on a flight 9 days out but ones material actions will produce a result amongst others.Inconsistent? Yes. Material? No.It appears to be so - and any loss due to customer attrition appears inconsequential.They should opt for a different configuration if passengers are no longer willing/paying to tolerate 3-3-3 seating with 31" of pitch. But as you have already pointed out, passengers are still paying for CO's Y product.

My comment about competitors/partners was this. A 12% capacity increase (going from 8 to 9) represents a material competitive advantage which would be formidable to overcome. Hence, if the majority of CO's competitors/partners realized this advantage no number of winglets, labor concessions or meals at meal time will bridge the gap. And therein lies the driving market force to offer more (or less) for less.

As I said before - time to (re)start the diet if I'm planning on parking myself there.

Another thing to consider:

It's a lot easier and cheaper to order 9-abreast at 33in pitch and adjust pitch to match demand/tolerance, than to order 8-abreast and then find out they need to put more seats. Because they'd have to order all new seats for the whole plane, as I don't think passengers will tolerate a 28-in pitch, regardless of how wide the seats are.

I hope that CO is thinking ahead here. There are a few possibilities. One might be to beef up the offerings in the Pacific. I have noticed a lot of comments about GUM as an option--even a gateway to the mainland. I don't know if Hawaii is another option.

My real thought is for CO to think outside the box and build up an airport like LAX. Here's the idea.

B777/787 #1
EWR/HKG 1500/1850
HKG/LAX 2030/1400
LAX/LGW 1530/0945
LGW/EWR 1145/1445

Back the equipment goes to Europe; another piece of equipment wends its way to HKG.

B777/787 #2
LAX/HKG 0020/0615
HKG/EWR 1025/1405

I think that the B777 spends too much idle time in HKG. CO should think of opening a route to a different city in North America. I think LAX is a good choice: (i) there's a lot of originating traffic and (ii) it's somewhat underserved by ST. The only thing militating against LAX is, apparently, the CEO, who has told FTer's that a hub in LAX is not an option. :(

The most famous "linear programming" problem one can draw on a blackboard while teaching this stuff is from an ancient paper concerning the Suez Canal. The conclusion was that moving from a daily to a two-day schedule significantly increased capacity.

I'd bet anything CO knows this example inside out, as the airlines are among the biggest optimization software customers. Airline crew scheduling is the textbook "integer programming" problem. On the other hand, gauging customer acceptance of a rotating schedule is a business decision, not an engineering decision.

I'd think that customers would accept a rotating schedule if it came with a better price. And the cargo wouldn't care, where many say the Pacific money really is. (I'm reminded of the midwest farmer's reaction to daylight savings time: "Won't it confuse the crops?")

GUM relative southern location may prohibit it from becoming an Asian/Pacific gateway (similar to UA/NW at NRT) fed by connections from the US. Moreover, as we have observed, CO's recent style is just to overfly the hubs with non-stop offerings from IAH, EWR and CLE.

I certainly hope CO does choose to grow GUM (as was recently discussed on another thread) but I'd suspect growth would come to meet O/D traffic vis-à-vis connecting traffic from the states.

Many would say CO did think outside the box with sending the 757's TATL.

UA used to offer HKG-LAX flight but pulled it due to lack of demand. Moreover, CA offers two non-stops between the markets. Secondly, does CO have the rights to fly to LGW from LAX? If they do, they'll have to compete against multiple flights from VS, BA, AA and UA.
You think it spends to much time in HKG? :eek: Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps this is when CO sends the birds off for the MX? Just because the plane is not in the air does not mean it is sitting on a lonely tarmac somewhere waiting to gorge itself on passengers again.

LAX is already served by CA on that route, LAX-HKG used to be serviced by UA until they dropped it and finally LAX and HNL used to be a hub for CO until it was dropped.

Those 777's - and to a lesser extent 787's - are expensive machines to hurl through the air. Perhaps one reason they sit for so long at HKG (or PEK, EZE, GIG, etc.) is that any incremental revenue gained through more service would not offset the incremental cost associated with operating the flight (to say nothing of performing MX or possessing the necessary rights to operate the flight). The reason there's no hub/gateway at LAX is the same reason there's none at GUM: it's just not believed to be economically viable by the current administration.

On some days, I have actually found three daily CA departures from LAX.


It certainly is possible that some maintenance work is performed in HKG. There is still a lot of dead time on the ground, considering that the carrier has so few B777's.


Every business should be driven by the bottom line. Continental could improve it's equipment utilization. The number isn't low, but it could be ratched it. In any event, CO isn't going to have a choice. If the carrier continues to grow at the current clip (all else being equal), it's going to have to either start a new hub or create mini-hubs somewhere else in the country. To some extent, it's already started to do the latter in LAX with flights to Mexico and seasonally to Colorado.

Why Does The 777 Sit In Hong Kong For 16 Hours?

see discussion at

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...&highlight=bkk

Let's forget about maintenance and route rights (as in the other thread) for now, and just concentrate on passenger and flights logistics for a moment. What CoFan proposes is barely possible:

- First, EWR-HKG have to be a day flight. If it departs midnight, it arrives HKG at 3am. Too early. The route isn't far enough like SQ's EWR-SIN to do it as a red-eye. So, it has to be day flight. Right now it departs 3pm. To turn around that flight, it needs to leave earlier. Earliest is about noon, like EWR-PEK, to get the feed from other cities into EWR.

- So, CO99 EWR-HKG departs noon and arrives 3pm. Turn around 5pm for LAX. Arrives 3pm. After passengers go through immigration, only place for the 777 to go is IAH.

- So, this first plane will do EWR-HKG-LAX-IAH, and gets in to IAH late evening. It can then do NRT the next morning.

---

- The other 777 can come from EWR or IAH to LAX. Then a 1am departure for HKG, arriving early next morning, just like 2 of the 3 daily CXs. It can then turn around and do CO98 HKG-EWR at the current schedule. Depart around 11am and gets into EWR at 3pm.

Now, since LAX is not a CO hub, and the HKG-LAX fligth arrives that late, the only passengers they can market to are Houston and LA area residents plus those that can go on AA's connection from LAX. I don't think there's enough market to do this, since CX already flies the route 3 times a day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.

^ Yes to that. Yeep - and on that note here are the ranges for the 772ER, 772LR, 787 from EWR and the 772ER, 772LR, 787 from IAH.

But the 777LR is not cheap and should CO order it they will find themselves boxed into using the LR's on limited routes (i.e. those which could not be flown by a 772ER). Do you really see CO coughing up the cash for this bird to only satisfy a few select routes the 772ER/787 cannot?

At the last DO CO commented that the 777's had too many BF seats/Y seats for TATL but too few for the Pacific routes. Perhaps the 787 will relive the majority of the existing 777's of European duty to allow CO to refit them with a higher percentage of J seats and use the on mainly Asia runs.

…or maybe not. Who knows?
If the US would allow secure transit than IAH would be a much more valuable asset as they would be able to connect not only the southern areas of the US with the world but also Latin/South America. But as we all know, secure transit areas promote terrorism :rolleyes:.

Has Larry flown those 777s lately? None of my recent flights had any empties in Y/J - they were all packed to the gills...

My thinking is that Larry meant that the loads are seasonal and equipment needs to be repositioned accordingly. TATL 787s to Europe in the midst of winter is probably better utilization vs. TATL 777s.

I hope the 777s are used to serve India/China. Real growth is in Asia and if CO can position itself as the carrier of choice for travelers from India & China, they should be well set for the future.